CV Report

Project Review Committee
Each research project has an advisory committee appointed by the LTRC Director. The
Project Review Committee is responsible for assisting the LTRC Administrator or
Manager in the development of acceptable research problem statements, requests for
proposals, review of research proposals, oversight of approved research projects, and
implementation of findings.

LTRC appreciates the dedication of the following Project Review Committee members in
guiding this research study to fruition.

LTRC Administrator/ Manager
Mark J. Morvant
Pavement & Geotechnical Research Administrator

Members
Kim Martindale, DOTD
Bert Wintz, DOTD
Steve Meunier, DOTD
Zhongjie Doc Zhang, Ph.D., LTRC
Gavin Gautreau, LTRC
Mike B. Boudreaux, LTRC
Andy Munoz, FHWA
Recep Yilmaz, Ph.D., Fugro Geosciences, Inc.

Directorate Implementation Sponsor
William T. Temple, DOTD Chief Engineer

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE
1. Report No. FHWA/LA.03/386
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date
January 2004
4. Title and Subtitle
EVALUATION OF CONSOLIDATION
CHARACTERISTICS OF COHESIVE SOILS FROM
PIEZOCONE PENETRATION TESTS
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.
8. Performing Organization Report No.
386
10. Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Louisiana Transportation Research Center
4101 Gourrier Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
11. Contract or Grant No.
00-3GT
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
January 2000 December 2003
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Louisiana Transportation Research Ceter
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes
Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract

The piezocone penetration test (PCPT) has gained wide popularity and acknowledgement as a preferred in-situ device for
subsurface investigation and soil characterization. The PCPT measurements can be utilized for soil identification and the
evaluation of different soil parameters. Different interpretation methods have been proposed to evaluate the strength and
consolidation parameters of cohesive soils utilizing the piezocone penetration and dissipation test data. This report presents
the evaluation of the capability of the current PCPT interpretation methods to reasonably predict the consolidation parameters
needed to predict the total and time rate of settlement of cohesive soils. Seven sites in Louisiana were selected for this study.
In each site, in-situ PCPT tests were performed and soundings of cone tip resistance (q
c
), sleeve friction (f
s
) and pore
pressures (u
1
and u
2
) were recorded. Dissipation tests were also conducted at different penetration depths. High quality shelby
tube samples were collected close to the PCPT tests and used to carry out a comprehensive laboratory testing program
including unconfined compression test, triaxial test and one-dimensional oedometer consolidation test. The tangent
constrained modulus (M), overconsolidation ratio (OCR) and the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
), predicted using the
different interpretation methods, were compared with the reference values determined from the laboratory consolidation tests.
Results of this study showed that the consolidation parameters of soils can be reasonably predicted from the piezocone
penetration and dissipation test data, and hence provide a continuous profile of these parameters with depth. The results of
this study were verified by comparing the predicted settlements from PCPT methods with the laboratory calculated and field
measured settlements in three selected sites.
17. Key Words
PCPT test, Dissipation test, Consolidation,
Settlement, Constrained modulus, OCR, Coefficient
of consolidation.
18. Distribution Statement
Unrestricted. This document is available through
the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 21161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
106
22. Price

EVALUATION OF CONSOLIDATION CHARACTERISTICS OF
COHESIVE SOILS FROM PIEZOCONE PENETRATION TESTS

by
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.

LTRC Project No. 00-3GT
State Project No. 736-99-0781

conducted for
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author/principal investigator who is
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development or the Louisiana Transportation Research Center. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation.

January 2004

iii
ABSTRACT

The piezocone penetration test (PCPT) is widely acknowledged as a preferred in-situ device for
subsurface investigation and soil characterization. The PCPT measurements can be used for soil
identification and the evaluation of different soil parameters. Different interpretation methods
have been proposed to evaluate the strength and consolidation parameters of cohesive soils using
the piezocone penetration and dissipation test data. This report presents the evaluation of the
current PCPT interpretation methods capability to reasonably predict the consolidation
parameters necessary to calculate the total cohesive soil settlement and time rate. Seven sites in
Louisiana were selected for this study. At each site, in-situ PCPT tests were performed, and
soundings of cone tip resistance (q
c
) sleeve friction (f
s
), and pore pressures (u
1
and u
2
) were
recorded. Dissipation tests were also conducted at different penetration depths. High quality
shelby tube samples were collected close to the PCPT tests and used to carry out a
comprehensive laboratory testing program including the unconfined compression test, triaxial
test, and one-dimensional oedometer consolidation test. The tangent constrained modulus (M),
overconsolidation ratio (OCR), and the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
), predicted using
the different interpretation methods, were compared with the reference values determined from
the laboratory consolidation tests. Results of this study showed that the consolidation parameters
of soils can be reasonably predicted from the piezocone penetration and dissipation test data, and
thus provide a continuous profile of these parameters with depth. The results of this study were
verified by comparing the predicted settlements from PCPT methods with the laboratory-
calculated and field-measured settlements from three selected sites.

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research project was funded by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (LA DOTD) (State Project No. 736-00-0781), Louisiana Transportation Research
Center (LTRC Project No. 00-3GT). The comments and suggestions of Mark Morvant,
Pavement and Geotechnical Administrator at LTRC, are gratefully acknowledged. The author
acknowledges Dr. Mehmet Tumay, Associate Dean for Research, LSU, for the valuable
comments and suggestions, and William Tierney, research specialist at LTRC, for his help. The
author also would like to thank Dr. Zhongjie Zhang and Gavin Gautreau of LTRC for providing
valuable assistance in this study.

vii
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT

The results of this study demonstrated that the consolidation parametersconstrained modulus
(M), overconsolidation ratio (OCR), and vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
)can be
reasonably predicted from the results of piezocone penetration and dissipation tests. These
parameters can be used to predict the magnitude and time rate of consolidation settlement for
normally and lightly overconsolidated cohesive soils. However, the predicted total settlements
from PCPT data were more reliable and accurate than the predicted rate of settlements. The
proposed linear correlations exhibited better performance than the other interpretation methods,
and therefore are the recommended means to estimate the constrained modulus (M) and the
overconsolidation ratio (OCR). The Teh and Houlsby method provided good prediction and is
recommended for the evaluation of the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) [1].
The availability of the cone penetration test systems at LA DOTD will eventually make the
estimation of the magnitude and time rate of settlement easier, faster, cheaper, and more reliable
compared to the expensive and time-consuming sampling and subsequent laboratory testing of
soil samples. In addition, in-situ PCPT tests can provide the data needed to estimate the soil
parameters in soils where it is impossible to obtain adequate sampling. Therefore, based on the
results of this study, it is recommended that LA DOTD engineers gradually start implementing
the PCPT technology, particularly to estimate the consolidation settlement of fine-grained soils,
in conjunction with the traditional laboratory calculation of settlements. LA DOTD engineers
should continue to compare the consolidation settlements predicted from the PCPT data, the
calculated settlements from laboratory consolidation parameters, and the field measured
settlements until they build enough confidence in the PCPT interpretation methods. With
increasing confidence and experience, LA DOTD engineers can gradually move toward
replacing the conventional subsurface exploration with piezocone penetration and dissipation
tests for the estimation of consolidation settlement. It is anticipated that implementation of the
PCPT methods, in the long run, will result in a cost benefit and an improvement in settlement
prediction.

viii

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. v
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT.......................................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1
OBJECTIVE................................................................................................................................... 5
SCOPE............................................................................................................................................ 7
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 9
Background......................................................................................................................... 9
PCPT Measurements And Corrections ................................................................... 9
Consolidation Characteristics ............................................................................... 10
Constrained Modulus............................................................................................ 11
Coefficient of Consolidation................................................................................. 15
Overconsolidation Ratio ....................................................................................... 24
Undrained Shear Strength..................................................................................... 28
CPT Soil Classification......................................................................................... 29
Laboratory and In-Situ Tests ............................................................................................ 30
Laboratory Tests ................................................................................................... 30
In-situ Tests........................................................................................................... 30
Investigated Sites .................................................................................................. 36
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 57
Constrained Modulus ....................................................................................................... 57
Overconsolidation Ratio ................................................................................................... 66
Coefficient of Consolidation............................................................................................. 75
Verification ....................................................................................................................... 86
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 97
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 101
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 103

xi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Estimation of constrained modulus (M) for clayey soils [7] .......................................... 12
Table 2. Modified time factor (T
*
) [1] ......................................................................................... 19
Table 3. Gradient of dissipation curve (M
G
), root-time plot [14] ................................................ 19
Table 4. Range of anisotropic hydraulic conductivity (k
h
/k
v
) of clays [24] ................................. 22
Table 5. Summary of soil properties for the investigated sites. .................................................. 34
Table 6. Evaluation summary of different PCPT methods for predicting M. .............................. 58
Table 7. Evaluation summary of different PCPT methods for predicting OCR........................... 67
Table 8. Evaluation summary of different PCPT methods for predicting c
v
................................ 77

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Effect of pore water pressure on cone tip resistance (q
c
) and sleeve friction (f
s
) ......... 10
Figure 2. Constrained modulus (M) versus corrected tip resistance (q
t
) [8] ................................ 13
Figure 3. Comparison of modulus (M
p
) for Glava clay [8] .......................................................... 14
Figure 4. Comparison of modulus (M
n
) for Glava clay [8] .......................................................... 14
Figure 5. Relationship between constrained modulus and net cone resistance [9] ...................... 15
Figure 6. Time factor for Torstenssons model: (a) cylindrical solution; (b) spherical solution.. 17
Figure 7. Interpretation of time factor (T) [12] ............................................................................ 18
Figure 8a. Dissipation curves at different location of a 60
o
cone penetrometer [1] .................... 20
Figure 8b. Normalized dissipation curves plotted against T* [1] ................................................ 20
Figure 9. Calculating the gradient of initial linear section (m) (after Teh [14] ........................... 21
Figure 10. Terminology for interpretation of dissipation tests [12] ............................................ 23
Figure 11. Interpretation of rate factor (
c
) [12] .......................................................................... 23
Figure 12. Relationship between s
u
/
vo
and OCR [27] ............................................................... 25
Figure 13. Louisiana state map with approximate locations of the tested sites............................ 31
Figure 14. Results of one-dimensional consolidation test for Evangeline site, depth = 4.5-6 m. 32
Figure 15. Results of consolidation test for Evangeline site, depth = 4.5-6 m; (a) vertical
effective stress (
v
') versus vertical strain, (b)
v
' versus tangent constrained modulus
(M) ................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 16. Consolidation test results for Evangeline site, depth = 4.5-6 m; (a) vertical
effective stress (
v
') versus void ratio; (b) coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) versus void
ratio (e) ............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 17. Louisiana cone penetration systems: REVEGITS cone truck on the left and
CIMCPT cone truck on the right ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 18. 10 and 15 cm
2
piezocone penetrometers ..................................................................... 35
Figure 19. Soil boring profile for Manwell Bridge, Evangeline site ............................................ 41
Figure 20. Triaxial tests for Manwell Bridge, Evangeline site..................................................... 42
Figure 21. PCPT profiles and soil classification for Evangeline site ........................................... 43
Figure 22. Dissipation tests at Evangeline site ............................................................................. 43
Figure 23. Soil profile for New Iberia site at US 90 and La 88.................................................... 44
Figure 24. Triaxial tests for New Iberia site at US 90 and La 88................................................. 44
Figure 25. PCPT profiles and soil classification at US 90La 88 interchange, New Iberia site .. 45
Figure 26. Dissipation tests at US 90 La 88 interchange, New Iberia site ................................ 45
Figure 27. Soil profile for LA Peans canal Bridge, Lafourche site .............................................. 46
xiv
Figure 28. Triaxial tests for LA Peans canal Bridge, Lafourche site............................................ 46
Figure 29. PCPT profiles and soil classification for LA Peans canal Bridge, Lafourche site...... 47
Figure 30. Dissipation tests at LA Peans canal Bridge, Lafourche site........................................ 47
Figure 31. Soil boring profile for PRF site ................................................................................... 48
Figure 32. Unconfined compression tests for PRF site ................................................................ 49
Figure 33. PCPT profiles and soil classification for PRF site ...................................................... 50
Figure 34. Dissipation tests at PRF site ........................................................................................ 50
Figure 35. Layout of soil boring and PCPT tests for Pearl River site .......................................... 51
Figure 36. Soil boring profile for Pearl River site ........................................................................ 51
Figure 37. Triaxial tests for Pearl River site................................................................................. 52
Figure 38. PCPT profiles and soil classification for Pearl River site ........................................... 52
Figure 39. Dissipation tests at Pearl River site............................................................................. 53
Figure 40. Soil boring profile for East Airport site....................................................................... 53
Figure 41. Triaxial tests for East Airport site ............................................................................... 54
Figure 42. PCPT profiles and soil classification for East Airport site.......................................... 54
Figure 43. Dissipation tests at East Airport site ........................................................................... 55
Figure 44. Soil boring profile for Flat River site .......................................................................... 55
Figure 45. PCPT profiles and soil classification for Flat River site ............................................. 56
Figure 46. Measured versus predicted M using Kulhawy and Mayne [9] ................................... 59
Figure 47. Measured versus predicted M using Jones and Rust [10] .......................................... 59
Figure 48. Measured versus predicted M using Sanglerat [7] ..................................................... 60
Figure 49. Measured versus predicted M using Senneset et al. [8] ............................................. 60
Figure 50. q
t
versus measured M.................................................................................................. 61
Figure 51. (q
t

vo
) versus measured M....................................................................................... 61
Figure 52. Measured versus predicted M for Manwell Bridge - Evangeline site......................... 62
Figure 53. Measured versus predicted M for US 90LA 88 - New Iberia site............................. 62
Figure 54. Measured versus predicted M for LA Peans canal bridge - Lafourche site ................ 63
Figure 55. Measured versus predicted M for PRF site ................................................................. 63
Figure 56. Measured versus predicted M for Pearl River Bridge site .......................................... 64
Figure 57. Measured versus predicted M for East Airport Baton Rouge site............................ 64
Figure 58. Measured versus predicted M for Flat River Bossier site ........................................ 65
Figure 59. Measured versus predicted OCR using Schmertmann [16] ........................................ 68
Figure 60. Measured versus predicted OCR using Kulhawy and Mayne [9] .............................. 68
Figure 61. Measured versus predicted OCR using Chen and Mayne - u
1
[18] ............................ 69
Figure 62. Measured versus predicted OCR using Chen and Mayne - u
2
[18] ............................ 69

xv
Figure 63. Measured OCR versus (q
t
- u
1
) / '
vo
........................................................................... 70
Figure 64. Measured OCR versus (q
t
-
vo
) / '
vo
......................................................................... 70
Figure 65. Measured versus predicted OCR for Manwell Bridge - Evangeline site .................... 71
Figure 66. Measured versus predicted OCR for US 90LA 88 - New Iberia site ........................ 71
Figure 67. Measured versus predicted OCR for LA Peans canal bridge - Lafourche site............ 72
Figure 68. Measured versus predicted OCR for PRF site............................................................. 72
Figure 69. Measured versus predicted M for Pearl River Bridge site .......................................... 73
Figure 70. Measured versus predicted OCR for East Airport Baton Rouge site ....................... 73
Figure 71. Measured versus predicted OCR for Flat River Bossier site.................................... 74
Figure 72. Types II and III of dissipation curves [47] ................................................................. 78
Figure 73. Measured versus predicted c
v
using Teh and Houlsby [1] method ............................. 79
v
using Levadoux and Baligh [13] method .................... 79
v
using Robertson and Campanella [15] method ........... 80
v
using Teh [14] method................................................. 80
v
using Senneset et al. [12] method-a............................. 81
v
using Senneset et al. [12] method-b ............................ 81
v
using Jones and Rust [10] method............................... 82
v
for Manwell Bridge - Evangeline site ......................... 82
v
for US 90LA 88 - New Iberia site ............................. 83
v
for LA Peans canal bridge - Lafourche site................. 83
v
for PRF site.................................................................. 84
v
for Pearl River Bridge site........................................... 84
v
for East Airport Baton Rouge site ............................ 85
Figure 86. View of the pullout boxes at the vertical facing of the wall ....................................... 87
Figure 87. Layout of horizontal inclinometers under the wall ..................................................... 87
Figure 88. Comparison between PCPT-predicted, laboratory-calculated, and field measured
settlements for the LTRC test wall ................................................................................... 88
Figure 89. Results of PCPT tests at John Darnell Road LA 88 site .......................................... 89
Figure 90. Dissipation test results at John Darnell site first location ....................................... 90
Figure 91. Dissipation test results at John Darnell site second location.................................... 90
Figure 92. Predicted constrained modulus (M) at John Darnell site............................................. 91
Figure 93. Predicted vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) at John Darnell site ..................... 91
settlements for the embankment at John Darnell Road LA 88...................................... 92
xvi
Figure 95. Results of PCPT tests at LA Avenue site.................................................................... 93
Figure 96. Dissipation test results at LA Avenue site first location ......................................... 94
Figure 97. Dissipation test results at LA Avenue site second location .................................... 94
Figure 98. Predicted constrained modulus (M) at LA Avenue site ............................................. 95
Figure 99. Predicted vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) .................................................... 95
settlements for the embankment at LA Avenue site ......................................................... 96

1
INTRODUCTION

Saturated fine-grained soils, when loaded, can undergo large consolidation settlements over a
long period of time. The presence of this type of soil deposit is very common in southern
Louisiana. Therefore, the construction of embankments, bridges, and other structures on soft
Louisiana soils requires a reasonable estimate of the magnitude and time rate of consolidation
settlement of the soil in order to conduct a rational and safe foundation analysis and design. A
reliable estimate of the settlement of structures on soft soil deposits requires correct evaluation
of the consolidation parameters of foundation soils.
The strength and consolidation characteristics of cohesive soils can be estimated either from
laboratory or from in-situ tests. The laboratory tests such as the oedometer consolidation test are
usually conducted on small, presumably undisturbed, intact samples. However, almost all
recovered samples have a certain degree of disturbance. Because of a small sample size and the
unknown degree of disturbance, the laboratory-derived strength and consolidation parameters
may not be entirely representative of the in-situ soil conditions. For example, estimating the
vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) from laboratory measurements can under-predict the in-
situ values by several orders of magnitudes [2, 3, and 4], leading to an error by a factor of two to
ten [5]. For soils that are interbedded or have some fabric, such as fissures or layering, the
laboratory testing on small intact samples can be misleading. In addition, profiling the
consolidation characteristics from laboratory tests conducted on samples taken from different
depths can easily miss significant thin drainage layers [6].
In-situ tests can provide more accurate and reliable results than laboratory tests in assessing the
actual in-situ strength and consolidation performance of soils. The use of conventional field tests
(such as borehole permeameter, self-boring permeameter, pre-inserted porous probes) to measure
total and time rate of consolidation, are expensive, time-consuming, and require high skill and
experience; hence, it is not always possible to perform enough tests to achieve satisfactory
results. The piezocone penetration test (PCPT) is gaining acknowledgement as a preferred device
for subsurface investigation, soil characterization, and evaluation of geomedia. The PCPT is a
robust, simple, fast, and economical test that can provide continuous soundings of subsurface
soil. Capable of distinguishing between different drainage conditions during penetration, the
PCPT test is basically conducted by advancing a cylindrical rod with cone tip down into the soil.
The piezocone penetrometer can measure the cone tip resistance (q
c
s
), and
pore pressures at different locations, depending on the location of the pressure transducer (at the
2
cone face (u
1
), behind the base (u
2
), or behind the sleeve (u
3
)). These measurements can be
effectively used for soil stratification and identification, and to evaluate different soil properties
such as the strength and consolidation characteristics of the soil. This makes the PCPT valuable
for a wide range of geotechnical engineering applications.
The total consolidation settlement of fine-grained soils can be estimated from deformation
moduli such as the constrained or tangent modulus (M), while the time rate of settlement is
estimated using the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
). Different interpretation methods
have been proposed to estimate the constrained modulus (M) from the piezocone penetration
tests (PCPT) [7, 8, 9, and 10]. The available proposed correlations were determined by relating
the PCPT test data (mainly q
c
) to the laboratory measured constrained modulus obtained from
one-dimensional oedometer tests. Several empirical, semi-empirical, analytical, and finite
element interpretation methods have been developed by researchers to estimate the horizontal
coefficient of consolidation (c
h
) of cohesive soils from the piezocone dissipation tests [e.g., 1,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15]. Some of these methods are based on estimating the time for 50
percent dissipation (t
50
) [e.g., 11, 13], some based on evaluating the gradient of initial linear
dissipation [e.g., 14], and others based on the rate of dissipation at a given dissipation level [e.g.,
12]. The rigidity of the soil (I
r
) was included in some methods. The vertical coefficient of
consolidation (c
v
) can then be calculated using the relation suggested by Levadoux and Baligh,
which is based on the ratio of the vertical to horizontal coefficients of hydraulic conductivity of
the soils [13].
Deformation and compressibility characteristics of soils are highly dependent on the stress
history represented by the overconsolidation ratio (OCR). Therefore, for a proper selection of the
relevant soil parameters to estimate the total settlement, it is necessary to profile the OCR with
depth. The correct evaluation of the OCR is very critical in estimating the total consolidation
settlement of overconsolidated cohesive soils, since the deformation characteristics of the soil
changes as the applied load exceeds the pre-consolidation pressure (P
c
). Several investigators
used the PCPT test that can provide continuous measurements with depth to estimate the OCR.
Several correlation methods, mostly empirical, were proposed to evaluate the OCR from the
PCPT data. These methods are based either on undrained shear strength (s
u
) [e.g., 16], or directly
from the PCPT profile using either tip resistance (q
c
) or pore pressure (u) [e.g., 9, 17, 18, and
19]. Therefore, part of this study evaluated the reliability of the existing interpretation methods
for estimating the OCR from the PCPT data and/or developing a new method based on the
collected PCPT data.

3
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the current interpretation methods for their
capability to reasonably predict the consolidation parameters needed to calculate the magnitude
and time rate of consolidation settlement of cohesive soils as well as the OCR. Seven sites in
southern Louisiana were included in this study. In each site, in-situ PCPT tests were performed
and dissipation tests were conducted at different penetration depths. A comprehensive
laboratory-testing program was conducted to calculate the reference soil parameters. The
predicted consolidation parameters from the PCPT tests using the different interpretation
methods were compared with the reference soil parameters obtained from the laboratory testing.
The capabilities of the different methods were evaluated and new interpretation methods were
also proposed. The results of this study were verified by comparing the predicted settlements
from the proposed PCPT method with the field measured settlements at three selected sites.

5
OBJECTIVE

This research was aimed at utilizing the piezocone penetration tests (PCPT) and dissipation tests
to evaluate the magnitude and time rate of consolidation settlement of fine-grained soils in
Louisiana. This was achieved through the evaluation of the different deformation parameters.
Therefore, this study focused on the following objectives:
Evaluate the current interpretation methods for estimating the magnitude settlement of fine-
gained soils through the determination of the compression or constrained modulus (M) from
PCPT test data,
Evaluate the applicability of the existing interpretation methods for estimating the
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) from the PCPT test data,
Evaluate the applicability of the existing interpretation methods for determining the vertical
v
) of cohesive soils utilizing the PCPT dissipation tests, by
comparing the derived values of coefficient of consolidation from PCPT dissipation tests
with the laboratory reference measured values.
Verify the results of this study for estimating the magnitude of consolidation settlement by
comparing the settlements predicted from PCPT tests with the field measurements from
selected sites.
6

7
SCOPE

This research project focused on predicting the magnitude and time rate of consolidation
settlement for normally consolidated soils through the evaluation of strength and deformation
parameters utilizing the PCPT test results. The PCPT tests were conducted using the 60
o
Fugro
piezocones of cross-sectional areas of 10 and 15 cm
2
with pore pressure measurements at the
cone tip (u
1
) and the base (u
2
). The PCPT tests were conducted at a penetration rate of 2 cm/sec.
All the dissipation tests were conducted using the u
1
measurements. The u
2
measurements were
used only to correct the cone tip resistance (q
t
). The average PCPT measurements (q
c
, u
1
, u
2
) that
correspond to the same depths of the extracted shelby tube samples were calculated and used to
predict the consolidation parameters (M, OCR) using the different PCPT interpretation methods.
The dissipation tests (with u
1
) were used to predict the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) at
different penetration depths. The results of this study were based on the comparison between the
predicted consolidation parameters obtained from different interpretation methods and the
laboratory measured parameters obtained from one-dimensional oedometer consolidation tests.
However, the verification of the research findings was based on comparison between the
predicted consolidation settlement and field settlements measured using settlement plates.

8

9
METHODOLOGY

Background
PCPT Measurements and Corrections
During the piezocone penetration test (PCPT), the cone tip resistance (q
c
s
),
and pore water pressures measured at different locations (at the cone tip (u
1
), behind the
base(u
2
), and behind friction sleeve (u
3
)), are continuously recorded with depth. These
measurements can be used for soil identification and the evaluation of different geotechnical soil
properties. Due to the geometric design of the piezocone, the pore water pressures will act on the
shoulder behind the base and at the both ends of friction sleeve, as shown in figure 1. This will
influence the total stress measured from the cone tip and the friction sleeve. Therefore, the
measured cone tip resistance and sleeve friction need to be corrected to account for the pore
water pressure.
The corrected cone resistance, q
t
, is given as:
q
t
= q
c
+(1-a) u
2
(1)
where
a = A
n
/A
c
is the effective area ratio of the cone,
A
n
= cross-sectional area of the load cell,
A
c
= projected area of the cone,
For the piezocones used in this study, a = 0.59.
The corrected sleeve friction, f
t
, can be given as:
s
st sb
s t
A
) u A u (A
f f
3 2

= (2)
where
A
sb
= bottom cross-sectional area of the friction sleeve,
A
st
= top cross-sectional area of the friction sleeve,
10

Figure 1
Effect of pore water pressure on cone tip resistance (q
c
)
and sleeve friction (f
s
)
A
s
= surface area of friction sleeve
Since the pore water pressure behind the sleeve (u
3
) is rarely measured, the correction to the
sleeve friction can be made assuming equal pore pressures at each end of the sleeve. The ratio of
the corrected to the measured sleeve friction usually ranges within 20 percent. However, the
magnitude of correction can be reduced significantly if the end areas of the sleeve are equal.
Consolidation Characteristics
The settlements and deformation characteristics of fine-grained soils can be calculated from
deformation moduli such as the one-dimensional compression or constrained modulus (M)
defined as:
v c
v
m C
e
M
1

) 1 ( 3 . 2
=
+
=
(3)
where C
c
is the compression index, e is the void ratio, and m
v
is the coefficient of volume
compressibility.

11
The total consolidation settlement (S
c
) of fine-grained soils can be estimated utilizing the
piezocone penetration test data through the evaluation of the constrained modulus (M) using the
following equation:
M
S
c

= H (4)
where H is the thickness of the compressible soil layer, and is the applied stress.
The rate of consolidation can be calculated using the vertical coefficient of consolidation, c
v
, that
can be evaluated from the piezocone dissipation tests, as will be discussed in the following
sections.
Constrained Modulus
The compressibility of the soil can be expressed by the constrained modulus (M), which varies
with the effective stress (
v
) in different ways for various soil type. However, all variables are
accounted for in the following general expression [20]:

1

a
p
mp M
a
v
a
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (5)
Where m = dimensionless modulus number, p
a
= reference stress (100 kPa), and a = stress
exponent. For the preconsolidation stress range, a = 1, while a = 0 for normally consolidated
stress range.
Several correlations have been developed to relate the laboratory measured constrained modulus
(M) obtained from oedometer test, to the cone tip resistance (q
c
). The general relationship can be
expressed as follows:
M = . q
c
(6)
where q
c
is the measured cone tip resistance.
Sanglerat developed a correlation between the cone tip resistance(q
c
) and the constrained
modulus, M, and presented a comprehensive array of values for different soil types with
different cone tip resistance values, as shown in table 1 [7]. Jones and Rust found out that for
South African alluvial clay, a value of

= 2.75 0.55 can provide good correlation with M [10].
12
Senneset et al. [8] conducted correlation between the constrained modulus, M, and corrected
cone tip resistance, q
t
, as presented in figure 2 [8]. For silty soils, they obtained a linear
correlation between q
t
and constrained modulus (M) and they suggested the following
equations:
M = 2 q
t
for q
t
< 2.5 MPa (7)
And
M = 4 q
t
- 5 for 2.5 < q
t
< 5 MPa (8)
Senneset et al. related the constrained modulus (M) by a linear interpretation of the net cone
tip resistance (q
n
) [8]. For the pre-consolidation range, they proposed the following relation:
M
p
=
p
. q
n
=
p
. (q
t
-
vo
) (9)
Where
p
ranges between 5 and 15,
vo
is the total overburden stress, and q
t
is the corrected
cone tip resistance.
Table 1
Estimation of constrained modulus, M, for clayey soils [7]
q
c
(MPa) M = 1/m
v
= . q
c

q
c
< 0.7
0.7< q
c
< 2.0
q
c
> 2.0
3 < < 8
2 < < 5
1 < < 2.5
Clay of low plasticity (CL)
q
c
> 2.0
q
c
< 2.0
3 < < 6
1 < < 3
Silts of low plasticity (ML)
q
c
< 2.0 2 < < 6 High plastic silts and Clays
(MH, CH)
q
c
< 1.2 2 < < 8 Organic silts (OL)
q
c
< 0.7
50< w < 100
100< w < 200
w > 200
w = water content

1.5 < < 4
1 < < 1.5
0.4 < < 1.0
Peat and organic clays
(P
t
, OH)

13

Figure 2
Constrained modulus (M) versus corrected tip resistance (q
t
) [8]
Senneset et al. also propose the following relation for normally consolidated range [8]:
M
n
=
n
. q
n
=
n
. (q
t
-
vo
) (10)
where
n
= 6 2 for most clays.
For the Glava clays, Senneset et al. found that for the pre-consolidation range, the constrained
modulus, M
p
, compared well with the average interpretation of 10 q
n
with a variation range of
5q
n
as shown in figure 3 [8]. However, for the normal consolidation range, the constrained
modulus, M
n
, compared well with the upper limit of 8 q
n,
as shown in figure 4. These examples
demonstrate that compression moduli for clays can be predicted from semi-empirical
relationships using CPT data.
Kulhawy and Mayne studied the relationship between the constrained modulus, M, and the
net cone tip resistance (q
t
-
vo
) for different soils and suggested the following relation [9]:
M= 8.25 . (q
t
-
vo
) (11)
14

Figure 3
Comparison of modulus (M
p
) for Glava clay [8]

Figure 4
Comparison of modulus (M
n
) for Glava clay [8]

15

Figure 5
Relationship between constrained modulus and net cone resistance [9]
Figure 5 presents the general relationship between constrained modulus and net cone
resistance as reported by Kulhawy and Mayne [9].
Even though these relations correlate well in some cases, local experience is essential to develop
better correlation between cone tip resistance (q
c
) and the constrained modulus (M) for different
soil types with greater reliability.
For a stress range of
v vo
+ , Senneset et al. suggested using the following relation to
calculate the average constrained modulus, M
av
[8]:
vo
v vo
av
M M
+
=
2 /
(12)
Coefficient of Consolidation
The flow and consolidation characteristics of cohesive soils can be evaluated using the
v
) and the hydraulic conductivity (k) parameters. The two
parameters are related through the following equation:
w
v
M
k c = (13)
The coefficient of consolidation (c) that is used to calculate the rate of soil settlement can be
evaluated from the piezocone dissipation tests. The PCPT dissipation test consists of stopping
16
the cone penetration and recording the dissipation of excess pore pressure (u) with time. The
excess pore pressure is defined as the difference between the penetration pore pressure (u) and
the static equilibrium pore pressure (u
o
).
Several empirical, semi-empirical, and analytical methods have been developed to evaluate the
consolidation characteristics of soils from the dissipation tests using the PCPT, based on the
cavity expansion theories [e.g., 11, 21], the strain path method [e.g., 13], and the combination of
the strain path method with the finite element technique [1].
Cavity Expansion Method
Several investigators have used the cavity expansion theories (cylindrical and spherical) to
model the piezocone penetration tests [e.g., 11, 21, 22]. The interpretation model developed by
Torstensson assumes an elasto-plastic soil model and cylindrical or spherical cavity expansion
theory to compute the initial excess pore pressure distribution [11, 21]. During the PCPT
process, the soil along the penetrometer shaft is modeled using a cylindrical cavity expansion
from zero to the piezocone radius, and at the cone tip the soil is modeled using a spherical cavity
expansion from zero to the equivalent radius. Torstensson used a linear uncoupled one-
dimensional consolidation to compute the dissipation of excess pore pressures [11 and 21].
Torstensson suggested that the coefficient of consolidation should be interpreted at 50 percent
dissipation, and he proposed the following relation for the interpretation of the horizontal
h
) from piezocone dissipation tests:
50
2
50
t
r T
(piez) c
o
h
= (14)
where T
50
is the time factor at 50 percent dissipation, (r
o
) is penetrometer radius for cylindrical
model or equivalent penetrometer radius for spherical model, and t
50
is the time for 50 percent
dissipation. The interpretation curves of the time factor (T) proposed by Torstensson for both
cylindrical and spherical solutions are presented in figure 6 [11 and 21].
A similar equation was proposed by Senneset et al. [12] (method-a). The chart for time factor (T)
is shown in figure 7. The time factor is a function of soil properties and degree of pore pressure
dissipation, u
t
/u
i
; where u
t
= u
t
- u
o
, and u
t
is the pore pressure at a given time t.

17

(a)

(b)

Figure 6
Time factor for Torstenssons model: (a) cylindrical solution; (b) spherical solution

18

Figure 7
Interpretation of time factor, T, [12]
Teh and Houlsby Method
Teh and Houlsby developed a model to analyze the PCPT based on the combination of the strain
path method with the large strain finite element analysis using an elastic-perfectly plastic
material model of the Von Mises [1]. The strain path method was used to compute the initial
distribution of excess pore pressures. The finite difference is used for the analysis of the
dissipation excess pore pressure using the Terzaghi-Rendulic uncoupled consolidation theory.
To include the effect of the soil stiffness (I), Teh and Houlsby introduced the modified time
factor (T*) as given in table 2 [1].The normalized dissipation curves at the cone face and cone
shoulder are shown in figure 8. Teh and Houlsby proposed the following interpretation
expression for the prediction of the horizontal coefficient of consolidation (c
h
) [1]:
r
o
*
h
I
t
r T
(piez) c
50
2
50
= (15)
where I
r
= G/s
u
is the rigidity index, G is the shear modulus, and s
u
is the undrained shear
strength.

19
Table 2
Modified time factor (T
*
) [1]
Location
Degree of
Consolidation
Cone tip
(u
1
)
Cone base
(u
2
)
5 radii above
cone base
10 radii above
cone base
20 0.014 0.038 0.294 0.378
30 0.032 0.078 0.503 0.662
40 0.063 0.142 0.756 0.995
50 0.118 0.245 1.11 1.458
60 0.226 0.439 1.65 2.139
70 0.463 0.804 2.43 3.238
80 1.04 1.60 4.10 5.24

Table 3
Gradient of dissipation curve (M
G
), root-time plot [14]
Filter Location Cone tip (u
1
) Cone base (u
2
)
5 radii above
cone base
Dissipation curve
gradient (M
G
) 1.63 1.15 0.62

Teh Method
Teh proposed a method to interpret the coefficient of consolidation from the plot of pore
pressure dissipation on square-root time and calculate the gradient of the initial linear section (m)
as shown in figure 9 [14]. The horizontal coefficient of consolidation (c
h
) can then be estimated
using the follows equation:
2 2
o r G h
r I ) (m/M (piez) c = (16)
Where M
G
is a gradient of theoretical dissipation curve for a given penetrometer geometry
and filter location as shown in table 3.
20

Figure 8a
Dissipation curves at different locations of a 60
o
cone penetrometer [1]

Figure 8b
Normalized dissipation curves plotted against T* [1]

21

Time (sec)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
1/m

Figure 9
Calculating the gradient of initial linear section (m) (after Teh [1])
Senneset et al. Method-b
Senneset et al. [12] suggested an equation to predict c
h
(piezo) from the dissipation rate
diagram as follows:
i t o c h
u u r piezo c = / ) (
2
& (17)
Where
c
is the rate factor,
t
u& is the rate of dissipation at a given dissipation level, and u
i
is
the initial excess pore pressure at t = 0. Figure 10 describes the terminology for interpretation.
The value for the rate factor
c
can be obtained from figure 11. The rate factor is a function of
soil properties and degree of pore pressure dissipation, u
t
/u
i
.
Since the dissipation of pore pressure occurs during recompression range (unloading) rather than
in the normal consolidation range, Baligh and Levadoux suggested that the predicted c
h
(piezo) =
c
h
(overconsolidated) and they proposed the following relation to transfer c
h
(piezo) to normally
consolidated condition c
h
(NC) [6]:
(piezo) c
CR
RR
c
h h(NC)
= (18)
22
where
o
c
o
r
e
c
CR
e
c
RR
+
=
+
=
1
and
1
(19)
Where RR and CR are the recompression and compression ratios, respectively; c
r
is the swelling
index, c
c
is the compression index, and e
o
is the initial void ratio of soil.
Because of soil anisotropy, soil deposits typically have a greater horizontal hydraulic
conductivity (k
h
) than vertical hydraulic conductivity (k
v
) and therefore in most cases the
horizontal coefficient of consolidation is generally higher than the vertical coefficient of
consolidation (i.e., c
h
> c
v
). It was indicated that c
h
governs the consolidation process around the
piezocone. The vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) can be calculated using the follows
expression suggested by Levadoux and Baligh [13]:
h(NC)
h
v
v(NC)
c
k
k
c = (20)
An estimation of the in-situ anisotropy of fine-grained soils (k
v
/k
h
) is difficult to obtain from
laboratory tests because of the effects of sample size, sample disturbance, the presence of
fissures and cracks, etc. [3]. Therefore, to estimate c
v
a rough estimate of (k
v
/k
h
) can be used
from suggested ranges of values of (k
v
/k
h
) for various soil types (Table 4) [6, 23, 24].
Table 4
Range of anisotropic hydraulic conductivity (k
h
/k
v
) of clays [23]
Nature of clay k
h
/k
v

No evidence of layering 1 to 1.5
Slight layering, e.g., sedimentary clays with occasional
discontinuous lenses and layers of more permeable
material 2 to 4
Varved clays and other deposits containing embedded and
more or less continuous permeable layer 3 to 5

23

Figure 10
Terminology for interpretation of dissipation tests [12]

Figure 11
Interpretation of rate factor (
c
) [12]

24
Overconsolidation Ratio
The overconsolidation ratio (OCR) and preconsolidation pressure (
p
) are considered
fundamental characteristics of clayey soils that are needed for geotechnical engineering design to
determine the deformation behavior of the soil under structures. They represent the stress history
of the soil deposit. The OCR is defined as the ratio of the maximum past effective consolidation
stress (preconsolidation pressure,
p
) and the existing effective overburden stress (
vo
). So, the
OCR and the
p
are related to each other as follows:
p
= OCR .
vo
or OCR =
p
/
vo
(21)
By knowing the OCR, the
p
can then be evaluated using the above equation.
The values of OCR and
p
have an important effect on the strength, stress-deformation and the
compressibility characteristics of the soil. Hence, profiling the OCR or
p
is essential for the
proper selection of relevant soil parameters for geotechnical design. The OCR and
p
are
usually obtained from laboratory oedometer tests on soil samples obtained from the field.
The PCPT, which provides continuous measurements of q
c
, f
s
, and pore pressures (u
1
and u
2
),
can be a promising tool for estimating OCR. Several correlation methods, mostly empirical, are
available in the literature attempting to evaluate the OCR from the PCPT data. These methods
are based either on the undrained shear strength (s
u
) [e.g., 16], or directly from the PCPT profile
[e.g., 9, 17, 18, 19, and 25] using either tip resistance (q
c
) or pore pressure (u
1
and u
2
). These
methods are described below:
I. Estimation of OCR from undrained shear strength
Schmertmann suggested estimating the OCR based on the undrained shear strength (s
u
) as
follows [16]:
(1) Estimate s
u
from CPT/PCPT data.
(2) Estimate the effective vertical pressure (
vo
) from soil profile
(3) Compute the ratio S = (
vo u
/ s ) =
|
|
.
|
\
|
vo kt
vo t
N
q
, N
kt
is the cone factor

25

Figure 12
Relationship between s
u
/
vo
and OCR [27]
(4) Estimate the corresponding normally consolidated value S
n
=
NC vo u
s ) / ( from the
plasticity index (I
p
) using Skempton relation [26]:
p NC vo u n
I . . ) / (S S 0037 0 11 0 + = = (22)
If plasticity index is not known, an average value of s
u
/
vo
= 0.3 for NC soil can be used.
(5) Estimate the OCR using a correlation chart shown in figure 12 [27] or using the
following relation:

) / ( 04 . 0 13 . 1
n
S S
n
S
S
OCR
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (23)
II. Estimation of OCR from PCPT data
Several methods have been proposed to interpret the OCR of clays from PCPT data. These
methods are based on cone tip resistance (q
c
), pore pressure measurements (u
1
, u
2
), or a
combination of both.
26
Mayne and Holts suggested correlating OCR and the normalized cone tip resistance with respect
to effective stress [(q
c

vo
)/'
vo
] and obtained the following relationship [28]:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
vo
vo c
q
0.4 OCR (24)
Kulhawy and Mayne [9], Chen and Mayne [18], Powell et al. [29], and Leroueil et al. [30],
related the OCR with the normalized net tip resistance [(q
t

vo
)/'
vo
] and suggested the
following equation to estimate the OCR from the PCPT data:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
vo
vo t
t
q
k OCR (25)
Where the value of k
t
seems to be soil type and site dependent. Based on a study on some clayey
sites in United Kingdom, Powell et al. found that k
t
ranges from 0.2 to 0.24 for non-fissured clay,
and ranges from 0.91 to 2.22 for heavily overconsolidated fissured clay [29]. Lutenegger and
Kabir, however, obtained a mean value of 0.30 for postglacial marine clays in New York [31].
Kulhawy and Mayne found a good correlation with k
t
= 0.33 [9]. Sugawara suggested that for
soils with fine content 80 percent the value of k
t
= 0.33 represents an upper limit of OCR [32].
For eastern Canadian clays, Leroueil et al. proposed a value of k
t
= 0.28 [30]. Chen and Mayne
obtained a value of k
t
= 0.32 with scattered results and low coefficient of determination (R
2
=
0.67) [18].
Using the effective stress approach, Chen and Mayne suggested the following simplified relation
to estimate OCR from piezocones with pore pressure element at the tip (u
1
) [18]:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
vo
1 t
1
u q
k OCR (26)
where k
1
= 0.81. For piezocones with pore pressure element at the base, u
2
, Chen and Mayne
proposed the following expression to estimate OCR [18]:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
vo
2 t
2
u q
k OCR (27)
where k
2
= 0.46. Similar expression was also suggested by Konrad and Law to estimate OCR
with k
2
= 0.49 [17].

27
In piezocones where pore pressures are measured on both the cone tip and behind the base,
Sully, et al. proposed the use of the normalized pore pressure difference, PPD, to estimate the
OCR and suggested the following relation [19]:
OCR = 0.66 +1.43 (PPD) (28)
Where PPD is the pore pressure difference defined as:
o
u
u u
PPD
2 1

= (29)
Where u
1
is the pore pressure measured near the tip, and u
2
is the pore pressure measured just
behind the base. This relation does not seem to be valid for OCR less than 10 [33]. However,
Sully, et al. suggested that a better correlation can be obtained by using u
3
instead of u
2
[19].
Mayne et al. tried to find a correlation between OCR and the ratio u
2
/u
1
, but the results were
not encouraging [34].
Other researchers [9, 35, 36] examined a correlation between OCR and the excess pore
pressure normalized with respect to effective overburden pressure, '
vo
, as follows:
vo
o
u
u u
k OCR
= (30)
Where u = u
1
or u
2
. The use of u
1
is most widely used because of the fact that u
2
values can be
zero or negative in very stiff and heavily fissured clays [37]. For inorganic Scandinavian clays,
Larsson and Mulabdic obtained a value of k
u
= 0.29 for u
1
measurement, and k
u
value of 0.3 to
0.4 for u
2
measurement in their correlation [35]. Based on correlation using u
2
measurement,
Kulhawy and Mayne obtained a value of 0.54 for k
u
[9], while Mayne and Kulhawy [36]
proposed a value of 0.4 for k
u
[36].
Due to similarities between the pore pressure responses in the undrained triaxial test and in the
piezocone test, Wroth introduced the pore pressure ratio B
q
, similar to Henkels a parameter
defined as [38]:
vo t
q
- q
u
B = (31)
Where u = u u
o
. The B
q
ratio is highly dependent on the drainage characteristic and the stress
28
history of the soil. Therefore, B
q
can be a useful index to estimate the OCR [38]. The following
expression was suggested:
) - B . (
B .
OCR
q
q
1 7 3
3 2
= (32)
Demers and Leroueil pointed out that the correlation of OCR using pore pressure data usually
gives more scattered results than those using cone tip resistance [33].
Based on the combination of cavity expansion and critical state theory, Mayne suggested the
following expression for estimating OCR [39]:
33 1
2
1 95 1
1
2
.
vo
t
c

u q
M .
OCR
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= (33)
33 1
1
1
95 1
1
2
.
vo
t
c

u q
M .
OCR
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= (34)
Where M
c
is the slope of the critical state line given as
M
c

=
sin 3
sin 6
(35)
Undrained Shear Strength
The undrained shear strength, s
u
, can be estimated from the CPT data using the following
equation:
k
vo t
u
N
q
s

= (36)
Where q
t
is the corrected cone tip resistance,
vo
is the total overburden pressure, and N
k
is an
empirical cone factor. Rad and Lunne showed that the N
k
factor varies from 8 to 29 [40].
The wide range of the N
k
factor requires that local correlation have to be well established for
better prediction of s
u
. The N
k
factor is usually determined by calibration to a reference value of
s
u
obtained either from field or laboratory tests.

29
CPT Soil Classification
Several methods have been used to classify soil utilizing CPT data [e.g., 37, 41, 42, 43, 44]. The
probabilistic region estimation method developed by Zhang and Tumay was used in this study to
classify the soil based on CPT data [44]. This method is similar to the classic soil classification
methods since it is based on soil composition. In this method, a conformal transformation is used
to determine the soil classification index (U) from the CPT sounding parameters, the cone tip
resistance, q
c
, and friction ratio, R
f
. A statistical correlation was established between the U index
and the compositional soil type given by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A
normal distribution of U was established for each reference USCS soil type (GP, SP, SM, SC,
ML, CL and CH). Each U value corresponds to several soil types with different probabilities.
Soil types were further rearranged into three groups: sandy and gravelly soils (GP, SP, and SM),
silty soils (SC and ML), and clayey soils (CL and CH).
The Zhang and Tumay method provides a profile of the probability or chance of having each soil
type group (sandy, silty and clayey) with depth; this shows the chance of misclassifying the
soils, similar to other CPT soil classification methods [44]. This method was implemented into a
FORTRAN code as well as a Visual Basic code to facilitate its use.

30
Laboratory and In-Situ Tests
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the current interpretation methods for their
ability to estimate the total settlement and time rate of settlement from piezocone penetration and
dissipation tests. To achieve this goal, several sites were selected in Louisiana to conduct in-situ
field and laboratory tests. Seven of these sites were used to evaluate the different PCPT
interpretation methods, possibly develop new correlations, and estimate the consolidation
parameters of fine-grained soils (M, OCR, c
v
). The other three embankments sites were used for
verification by comparing the predicted settlements with the field measured settlements. Figure
13 depicts a map of Louisiana with approximate locations of the sites selected for this study.
This section describes the laboratory and field testing program and the soil profiles of the
investigated sites.
Laboratory Tests
In each of the investigated sites, boreholes were drilled and high quality 7.6 cm (3 in.) shelby
tube samples were recovered at different depths for comprehensive laboratory testing. The
laboratory testing program included basic soil characterization tests such as water content, unit
weight, Atterberg limits, grain size distribution including hydrometer tests, and the specific
gravity. One-dimensional oedometer consolidation tests were also performed on undisturbed
samples oriented in both vertical and horizontal directions. These tests evaluated the reference
consolidation parameters of the soil in both directions and the ratio of vertical to horizontal
v
/c
h
) for the different sites. The reference soil parameters include
the vertical and horizontal coefficient of consolidation, c
v
and c
h
, the tangent constrained
modulus, M, the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) and the compression indices, c
c
, c
r
. The
unconfined compression tests and the k
o
-consolidated undrained triaxial tests (Ck
o
U) were also
performed to estimate the undrained shear strength (s
u
) and the shear modulus (G) of the soil.
Table 5 presents a summary of the geotechnical properties of the subsurface soil obtained from
the laboratory tests at the different investigated sites. Some of the consolidation test results for
samples obtained from 4.5m to 6.0m deep at the Evangeline site are presented in figures 14
through 16.
In-Situ Tests
The in-situ testing program included performing both PCPT and piezocone dissipation tests.
Two state-of-the-art cone penetration systems are available at the Louisiana Transportation

31
Research Center (LTRC). These systems are the 20-ton Research Vehicle for Geotechnical In-
situ Testing and Support (REVEGITS) [45], and the Continuous Intrusion Miniature Cone
Penetration Test (CIMCPT) system [46]. Figure 17 presents a photograph of REVEGITS and
CIMCPT systems. The REVEGITS is an in-situ test and support CPT system developed to
acquire data for soil investigations, design and analysis. The system consists of a hydraulic
pushing and leveling system, 1m segmental rods, cone penetrometers (10 and 15 cm
2
), and a data
acquisition system. The REVEGITS system was used in this study for in-situ piezocone
penetration and dissipation testing.

Figure 13
Louisiana state map with approximate locations of the tested sites

32
1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 1.0E+3 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
Time (sec)
0.425
0.450
0.475
0.500
0.525
0.550
0.575
0.600
0.625
0.650
0.675
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.850
0.875
D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)
d
100
=- 0.080
t
50
= 1700
d
0
= 0.046
d
50
= 0.063
2.0 tons

Figure 14
Results of one-dimensional consolidation test for Evangeline site, depth = 4.5-6 m

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Vertical effective stress (MPa)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
0.0E+0 5.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.5E-4 2.0E-4 2.5E-4
Coefficient of consolidation (cm
2
/sec)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
(P
c
= 2.4 MPa)
c
c
= 0.243
c
r
= 0.091

(a) (b)
Figure 15
Consolidation test results for Evangeline site, depth = 4.5-6 m; (a) vertical effective
stress (
v
') versus void ratio; (b) coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) versus void ratio (e)

33
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Vertical effective stress,
v'
(MPa)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

(
%
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Vertical effective stress,
v'
(MPa)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
T
a
n
g
e
n
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d

m
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M

(
M
P
a
)
(a)
(b)

Figure 16
Results of consolidation test for Evangeline site, depth = 4.5-6 m; (a) vertical effective
stress (
v
') versus vertical strain, (b)
v
' versus tangent constrained modulus (M)
34

Table 5
Summary of soil properties for the investigated sites

Site
Unit
weight
(kN/m
3
)
Water
content
(%)
Liquid
Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index
Clay
content
(%)
Su
(kN/m
2
)

OCR
Manwell
Bridge
Evangeline
16 20
(18.5)
17 48
(32)
23 77
(48.9)
6 44
(25)
17 66
(42.3)
29 142
(71)
1 5.2
US 90 La 88
New Iberia
18.218.8
(18.3)
23 33
(25.5)
30 35
(33.2)
9 17
(12)
22 26
(24.3)
38 118
(87)
1.2 4.3
LA Peans
canal bridge
Lafourche
15 19
(16.8)
29 61
(38.8)
34 66
(46.8)
13 39
(21.4)
42 57
(52.2)
12.5 48
(28.4)
1 3.4
PRF 1616.9
(16.6)
3163
(49.1)
64 115
(91.7)
25 41
(31.8)
25 45
(41.4)
18.3 43.9
(25.7)
2 16.5
Pearl River 15 18.5
(16.2)
21 45
(32.2)
42 64
(53.6)
22 39
(30.3)
26 68
(43.6)
14.543.9
(25.7)
1.5 9.8
East Airport
Baton Rouge
16.5 19
(17.6)
12.4-28.1
(20)
30 41
(33.7)
12 23
(16.8)
26.2-69.6
(51)
38.3118
(80.8)
3.5 - 21
Flat River
Bossier
15.819.2
(17.4)
29.546.0
(36.1)
44 81
(63.6)
25 49
(36)
41.283
(66.6)
43.275.9
(54.8)
1 5.84

At each site, several in-situ PCPTs were performed around the drilled boreholes using the10 cm
2
and 15 cm
2
piezocone penetrometers. The piezocones used in this study are subtraction Fugro
type cone penetrometers. The 10 cm
2
piezocone has a sleeve area of 150 cm
2
with a pore
pressure transducer located 5 mm behind the base (u
2
configuration), while the 15 cm
2
piezocone
has a sleeve area of 200 cm
2
with two pore pressure transducers located on the cone face and
behind the sleeve (u
1
and u
3
configuration). The schematics of the 10 cm
2
and 15 cm
2
piezocone
penetrometers are depicted in figure 18. During PCPT tests, the piezocone was pushed at the rate
of 2 cm/sec, and the data was collected every 2 cm. The 10 cm
2
piezocone provided
measurements of the cone tip resistance (q
c
s
), and pore water pressure behind
the base, u
2
. While the 15 cm
2
piezocone provided measurements of q
c
, f
s
, and pore water
pressure at the cone tip, u
1
. The profile of PCPT tests were then used to identify the soil type,
evaluate the undrained shear strength, s
u
, tangent constrained modulus, M, and overconsolidation
ratio, OCR for each site using different interpretation methods.

35
To perform dissipation tests with respect to time, the penetration of the piezocone was arrested at
previously specified penetration depths that corresponded to the same depths of the recovered
samples. The dissipation tests were then used to estimate the horizontal and vertical coefficient
of consolidation, c
h
, and c
v
, respectively, based on different interpretation methods.

Figure 17
Louisiana cone penetration systems: REVEGITS cone truck on the left and CIMCPT
cone truck on the right

Figure 18
10 cm
2
and 15 cm
2
piezocone penetrometers

36
Investigated Sites
Seven Louisiana sites were selected to evaluate the different PCPT interpretation methods and
develop new correlations. Three other sites with field measured settlements were selected for
verification. Table 5 presents a summary of the soil properties for the investigated sites. Brief
descriptions of theses sites with the field and laboratory test results are discussed below:
Manwell Bridge, Evangeline Site
The Manwell Bridge is located at about 20 miles northwest of Opelousas. The results of a soil
boring at this site indicated that the soil profile consists of 1.5 m of brown silty sand, followed
by a layer of medium brown and gray clay from 1.5 m to 6.5 m, brown lean clay from 6.5 m to
7.5 m, and a layer of brown silt and sand from 7.5 m to 10.5m. Underneath it, there is a layer of
brown and gray clay with lenses of silt from 10.5 m to 13.5 m, followed by a 1.5 m thick gray
sand layer. A gray and brown clay layer lays from 15m to 18.5m, and lean clay with some lenses
of silt exists from 18.5m to 21.5m. This is followed by gray silt and silty sand layers from 21.5
m to 26.0 m. The soil profile and the corresponding soil properties are presented in figure 19 and
table 5, row 1. The results of laboratory tests show that the water content ranges from 17 percent
to 48 percent and the clay content ranges from 17 percent to 66 percent. The undrained shear
strength, s
u
, however, ranges from 29 - 142 kPa. The OCR varies with depth, from 5.2 at about
3.5 m to 1.0 at about 15 m. The results of four triaxial tests conducted on undisturbed samples
recovered from different depths are presented in figure 20. The rigidity index (I
r
) for this site
was estimated to be 40.
Three PCPT tests were conducted at the Manwell Bridge site, two PCPT using u
1
measurements
and one PCPT using u
2
measurement. The profiles of two PCPT test results are presented in
figure 21. Column 1 presents the corrected cone tip resistance, q
t
, profile. Column 2 presents the
sleeve friction (f
s
) profile. Column 3 presents the friction ratio (R
f
) profile, which is the ratio
between the sleeve friction and tip resistance. Column 4 presents the pore pressure profiles of u
1

and u
2
. These data will be used later to predict the constrained modulus, M, and OCR. Figure 21
also describes the soil classification using the CPT probabilistic region estimation method
developed by Zhang and Tumay [44]. The results of eight dissipation tests conducted at different
depths (3.7 m, 5.26 m, 6.46 m, 12.6 m, 19.3 m, 20.78 m, and 22.13 m) are presented in figure 22,
which will be used later to predict the vertical coefficient of consolidation, c
v
. The water table at
this site was at about 2 m.

37
US 90 - La 88 Interchange Site - New-Iberia
This site is located 10 miles south of New Iberia at the US 90 interchange at LA highway 88.
The soil profile at the New Iberia site consists of stiff to medium silty clay soils down to 7.5 m,
silty sand and sandy soils from 7.5 m to 12.0 m interbedded with thin layers of silty clay, silty
clay soil from 12.0 m to 13.3 m, and sandy soils down to 16.0 m. The soil profile and laboratory
soil properties of the New Iberia site are presented in figure 23 and table 5, row 2. The soil has
moisture content ranges from 23 percent to 33percent and clay content ranges from 22 percent to
26 percent. The OCR varies from 4.3 near the surface to 1.2 at about 7 m. The undrained shear
strength, s
u
, ranges from 38 to 118 kPa. The results of two triaxial tests conducted on
undisturbed samples recovered from different depths are presented in figure 24. The rigidity
index was estimated to be I
r
= 50.
Three PCPT tests were also conducted at this site, two using u
1
and one using u
2
measurements.
Figure 25 presents the profiles of PCPT test data (q
t
, f
s
, R
f
, u
1
and u
2
) and the corresponding CPT
soil classification for the New Iberia site [44]. Five dissipation tests were conducted at this site at
depths of 1.8 m, 2.8 m, 4.28 m, 5.8 m, and 7.24 m. The water table was located at about 1.5 m.
The dissipation tests are presented in figure 26.
LA Peans Canal Bridge Site - Lafourche
The LA Peans canal bridge site located five miles southeast of Thibodaux was selected for this
study. The soil boring showed that the profile consists of medium silty clay to 4 m, which is
underlain by a silty sand layer from 4 to 5.5 m, and soft to medium silty clay and clay soils from
5.5 m to 12 m. This is followed by a silty sand layer interbedded with lenses of silty clay down
to about 15.5 m. The soil profile and laboratory soil properties of the LA Peans site are presented
in figure 27 and table 5 row 3. The silty clay soil in this site has moisture content ranges from 29
percent to 61 percent and clay content ranges from 42 percent to 57 percent. The OCR varies
from 3.4 near the surface to 1 at about 7.5 m. The undrained shear strength, s
u
, ranges from 12.5
to 48 kPa. The results of two triaxial tests conducted on undisturbed samples recovered from
different depths are presented in figure 28. The rigidity index was estimated to be I
r
= 35.
The results of the PCPT tests conducted at this site are presented in figure 29. This figure
includes profiles of tip resistance, q
c
, sleeve friction, f
s
, friction ratio, R
f
, and pore water pressure
profiles, u
1
and u
2
. Figure 29 also describes the soil classification using the CPT probabilistic
region estimation method [44]. The results of four dissipation tests conducted at different depths
38
(2.5 m, 7.0 m, 8.5 m, and 11.0 m) are presented in figure 30. The water table at this site was
located at about 1.75 m.
Pavement Research Facility Site
The Pavement Research Facility (PRF) is located two miles west of Baton Rouge. This site was
used evaluate the PCPT interpretation methods and to verify settlement prediction. The boring
profile and soil properties of the PRF site are presented in figure 31 and table 5, row 4. The soil
deposit consists of 3.6 m of medium brown and gray silty clay layer, a stiff clay layer from 3.6 m
to 5.5 m, soft to medium gray clay from 5.5 m to 6.7m, followed by alternating layers of sandy
and silty clay soils from 6.7 to 10.5 m, and sandy layers from 10.5 to 16.0 m. The moisture
contents ranged from 31 percent to 63 percent. The clay content ranges from 25 percent to 45
percent.The undrained shear strength (s
u
) ranges from 18.3 to 43.9 kPa. The OCR varies from
16.5 at 0.5 m to 2 at 6.5 m depth. The rigidity index for the PRF site is I
r
= 30. The unconfined
compression tests conducted on undisturbed samples recovered from different depths are
presented in figure 32.
The profiles of PCPT test results (q
t
, f
s
, R
f
, u
1
and u
2
) and the corresponding CPT soil
classification using Zhang and Tumay [44] method are presented in figure 33 [44]. Six
dissipation tests were conducted at the PRF site at 1.66 m, 2.64 m, 3.32 m, 3.8 m, 4.36 m and
5.08 m depths. The water table at the PRF site was about 1.0 m below the surface. Figure 34
depicts the results of these dissipation tests. It is interesting to notice that some of the dissipation
tests at this site show initial increase in pore pressures (during the first 20 to 30 sec.) before real
dissipation starts. This type of abnormal dissipation curve is usually observed with u
2

measurement in overconsolidated soils. Interpretation of these types of dissipation curves will be
discussed later.
Pearl River Bridge Site
The Pearl River Bridge is located at I-10 near the border between Louisiana and Mississippi. The
layout of the soil boring and PCPT test locations conducted at the east bank of Pearl River are
shown in figure 35. The soil boring indicates that the soil deposit consists of 0.6 m of loose tan
fine sand, followed by medium stiff tan and gray sandy clay to 1.5 m below the surface. A layer
of soft gray silty clay with clay layers and wood lies from 1.5 m to 4.0 m. Below that layer, a
very soft gray silty clay with wood exists from 4.0 m to 6.4 m, and stiff gray clay with wood
exists from 6.4 m to 9.1m. Underneath this lies loose tan fine sand. The soil profile and the

39
corresponding soil properties are presented in figure 36 and table 5, row 5. The results of
laboratory tests show that the water content ranges from 21 percent to 45 percent and the clay
content ranges from 26 percent to 68 percent. The undrained shear strength, s
u
, ranges from 14.5
43.9 kPa. The OCR varies with depth from 9.8 near the surface to 1.5 at about 5.5 m depth.
The results of two triaxial tests conducted on undisturbed samples recovered from different
depths are presented in figure 37. The rigidity index of this site was estimated to be I
r
= 22.
Three PCPT tests were performed at the east bank of Pearl River as shown in figure 38. During
piezocone penetration, the PCPT test data (q
t
, f
s
, u
1
and u
2
) were recorded at 5-cm depth
intervals. Pore pressure measurements were recorded using u
2
configuration during PCPT-1, but
pore pressure measurements were recorded using u
1
configuration during PCPT-2 and PCPT-3.
The PCPT profiles and the corresponding Zhang and Tumay CPT soil classification with depth
for the Pearl River site are presented in figure 38 [44]. Pore pressure dissipation tests were
performed at six depths during the performance of PCPT-2 and PCPT-3. Dissipation tests were
performed at the 1.68, 2.60, and 4.42 m depths in PCPT-2, and at the 6.25, 7.15, and 9.0 m
depths in PCPT-3. The water table was at about 1.0 m depth. The results of the dissipation tests
are presented in figure 39. The dissipation test curve obtained at 2.6 m showed an initial increase
in pore pressure before real dissipation started, similar to the results obtained at PRF site.
East Airport Site
This site is located at 300 East Airport Road in Baton Rouge. Five boreholes were drilled in the
site with depths up to 10 m. The results of soil boring indicate that the soil deposit consists of 1.5
m of gray clay with organic traces and clayey sand with layers of sand from 1.5 m to 2.5 m,
followed by brown stiff clay layer down to 4.0 m. A layer of medium clay with clayey sand
layers exist from 4.0 m to 5.7 m, followed by stiff clayey sand from 5.7 m to 7.0 m, and dense
sand below that down to 10 m. Underneath this lies loose tan fine sand. The soil profile and the
corresponding soil properties are presented in figure 40 and table 5, row 6. The results of
laboratory tests show that the water content of soil ranges from 12.4 percent to 28.1 percent, the
clay content ranges from 26.2 percent to 69.6 percent, and the undrained shear strength, s
u
,
ranges from 38.3 to 118 kPa. The OCR varies with depth from 21 near the surface to 3.5 at
about 7.0 m. The results of triaxial tests conducted on undisturbed samples are presented in
figure 41. The rigidity index was estimated to be I
r
= 30. The profiles of PCPT test data and the
CPT soil classification with depth are presented in figure 42 [44]. The water table in this site was
40
at about 1.0 m. The dissipation tests conducted at different depths (1.5 m, 3.2 m, 4.7 m, 6.1 m
and 6.74 m) are also presented in figure 43.
Flat River-Bossier Site
The site is located on the east bank of the Flat River in Bossier City. The soil profile at this site
consists of soft to medium silty clay soils down to 4.6 m and medium to stiff heavy clay from 4.6
to 8 m, followed by sand underneath it. The soil profile and laboratory soil properties of the Flat
River site are presented in figure 44 and table 5, row 7. The soil has moisture content ranges
from 29.5 percent to 46 percent and clay content ranges from 41.2 percent to 83 percent. The
OCR varies from 5.84 near the surface to 1 at about 6 m. The undrained shear strength (s
u
)
ranges from 43.2 to 75.9 kPa. The profiles of PCPT test results and the corresponding CPT soil
classification with depth are presented in figure 45 [44]. The water table of this site was deeper
than the clay layer, as seen in the pore pressure profile. Therefore, dissipation tests were not
conducted in this site, and only the relations that are not dependent on pore pressure
measurements will be used in the analysis.

41
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Soil Type
0 20 40 60 80 100
m.c, L.L. and P.L.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Modulus, M (MPa)
1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2
c
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0 2 4 6 8
OCR
Brown silty sand
Medium brown
and gray clay
Brown and gray
clay with lenses
of silt
0 50 100 150 200
S
u
(kPa)
Brown lean clay
Brown silt
and sand
Gray sand
Gray and Brown
clay
Gray lean clay
with lenses of silt
Gray silt
Gray silty sand
P.L.
m.c.
L.L.

Figure 19
Soil boring profile for Manwell Bridge, Evangeline site
42
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 2590 kPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
u
= 2760 kPa

(a) 4-5.5 m (b) 15-16.5 m

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 2200 kPa
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 2600 kPa

(a) 18-19.5 m (b) 19.5-21 m

Figure 20
Triaxial tests for Manwell Bridge, Evangeline site

43
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Tip Resistance (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0 20 40 60 80 100
Probability of soil type (%)
Silty
Clayey
Sandy
u
1
- test 1
u
2
- test 2
Test 1
Test 2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Sleeve Friction (MPa)
Test 1
Test 2

Figure 21
PCPT profiles and soil classification for Evangeline site
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
15.72 m
3.7 m
5.26 m
6.46 m
12.6 m
19.3 m
20.78
22.12 m

Figure 22
Dissipation tests at Evangeline site
44
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Soil Type
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
m.c, L.L. and P.L.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Modulus, M (MPa)
1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1
c
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0 2 4 6 8 10
OCR
Stiff to medium
dark gray silty clay
medium brown
silty clay
P.L.
m.c.
L.L.
Stiff tan and
gray silty clay
Silty sand and
sandy soils
interbedded with
thin thin layers of
silty clay and silt
0 40 80 120 160
S
u
(kPa)

Figure 23
Soil profile for New Iberia site at US 90 and La 88
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 720 kPa

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 2750 kPa

(a) 2.44 3.0 m (b) 5.5 6.1 m
Figure 24
Triaxial tests for New Iberia site at US 90 and LA 88

45
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 5 10 15 20
Tip Resistance, q
t
, (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sleeve Friction, f
s
, (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 2 4 6 8
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 1 2 3
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clayey
Silty
u
1
- test 1
u
2
- test 2
Sandy
Test 1
Test 2
Test 1
Test 2
Test 1
Test 2

Figure 25
PCPT profiles and soil classification at US 90LA 88 interchange, New Iberia site
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
1.8 m
2.8 m
4.28 m
5.8 m
7.24 m

Figure 26
Dissipation tests at US 90 LA 88 interchange, New Iberia site
46
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Soil Type
0 20 40 60 80 100
m.c, L.L. and P.L.
0 2 4 6
Modulus, M (MPa)
1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2
c
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0 1 2 3 4 5
OCR
Medium brown
to gray silty clay
P.L.
m.c.
L.L.
Gray silty sand
Medium silty sand
interbedded with
silty clay lenses
0 20 40 60 80
S
u
(kPa)
Soft to medium
brown silt clay
and clay soil

Figure 27
Soil profile for LA Peans canal Bridge, Lafourche site
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 1750 kPa
2.75 - 3.66 m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 3300 kPa
3.66 - 4.57 m

(a) 2.75 3.66 m (b) 3.66 4.57 m
Figure 28
Triaxial tests for LA Peans canal bridge, Lafourche site

47
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Tip Resistance, q
t
, (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Sleeve Friction, f
s
, (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clayey
Silty
Sandy
u
1
- test 1
u
2
- test 2
Test 1
Test 2
Test 1
Test 2

Figure 29
PCPT profiles and soil classification for LA Peans canal bridge, Lafourche site
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
2.5 m
7.0 m
8.5 m
11.0 m

Figure 30
Dissipation tests at LA Peans canal Bridge, Lafourche site
48

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Soil Type
0 30 60 90 120150
m.c, L.L. and P.L.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Modulus, M (MPa)
1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2
c
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0 5 10 15 20
OCR
Medium gray
silty clay
Medium brown
silty clay
P.L.
m.c.
L.L.
Stiff gray clay
Loose gray fine
silty sand with
lenses of clayey
sand and silt
0 20 40 60 80
S
u
(kPa)
Soft to medium
gray clayey silt

Figure 31
Soil boring profile for PRF site

49
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 1850 kPa
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 2390 kPa

(a) 0-0.9 m (b) 1.8-2.7 m

0 2 4 6 8 10
(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 650 kPa
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 2900 kPa

(c) 2.7-3.7 m (d) 4.6-5.5 m

Figure 32
Unconfined compression tests for PRF site

50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 5 10 15 20
Tip Resistance, q
t
, (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.0 0.1 0.2
Sleeve Friction, f
s
, (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0 2 4 6 8 10
R
f
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.0 0.5 1.0
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clayey
Silty
u
1
- test 1
u
2
- test 2
Sandy
Test 1
Test 2
Test 1
Test 2
Test 1
Test 2

Figure 33
PCPT profiles and soil classification for PRF site
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
5.08 m
3.80 m
4.36 m
3.32 m
2.64 m
1.66 m

Figure 34
Dissipation tests at PRF site

51

Figure 35
Layout of soil boring and PCPT tests for Pearl River site
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Soil Type
0 20 40 60 80 100
m.c, L.L. and P.L.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Modulus, M (MPa)
1E-5 1E-4 1E-3
c
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
OCR
Loose tan fine sand
Medium stiff tan &
gray sandy clay
0 50 100
S
u
(kPa)
Soft gray silty
clay with clay l
ayers and wood
Very soft gray silty
clay with wood
Stiff gray silty
clay with wood
Loose tan fine sand
P.L.
m.c.
L.L.

Figure 36
Soil boring profile for Pearl River site
52
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 1250 kPa

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 1450 kPa

(a) 2.1 3.0 m (b) 5.8 6.7 m
Figure 37
Triaxial tests for Pearl River site
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 5 10 15 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.0 0.1 0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 2 4 6 8
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 1 2
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sandy
Silty
Clayey
u
1
- test 1
u
2
- test 2
Test 1
Test 2
Test 1
Test 2

Figure 38
PCPT profiles and soil classification for Pearl River site

53
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
1.68 m
Depth
2.60 m
4.42 m
6.25 m
7.15 m
9.0 m

Figure 39
Dissipation tests at Pearl River site
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Soil Type
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
m.c, L.L. and P.L.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Modulus, M (MPa)
1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1
c
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25
OCR
Gray clay with
organic trace
Clayey sand with
layers of sand
P.L.
m.c.
L.L.
Medium clay
with clayey sand
Sand
0 40 80 120 160
S
u
(kPa)
Stiff clay
Stiff clayey sand

Figure 40
Soil boring profile for East Airport site
54
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 1620 kPa

0 2 4 6 8 10
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
(
1
-

3
)

(
k
P
a
)
E
50
= 2550 kPa

(a) 2.74 3.66 m (b) 3.66 4.57 m
Figure 41
Triaxial tests for East Airport site
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Silty
Clayey
Sandy
u
1
- test 1
u
2
- test 2
Test 1
Test 2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Test 1
Test 2

Figure 42
PCPT profiles and soil classification for East Airport site

55
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
4.7 m
1.5 m
6.1 m
6.74 m
3.2 m

Figure 43
Dissipation tests at East Airport site
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Soil Type
0 20 40 60 80 100
m.c, L.L. and P.L.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Modulus, M (MPa)
0 2 4 6 8 10
OCR
Soft to medium
brown silty clay
Medium brown
silty clay
P.L.
m.c.
L.L.
Sand
0 20 40 60 80 100
S
u
(kPa)
Medium to stiff
brown
heavy clay

Figure 44
Soil boring profile for Flat River site
56
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 5 10 15 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0.0 0.1 0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 2 4 6 8
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clayey
Sandy
Silty

Figure 45
PCPT profiles and soil classification for Flat River site

57
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
This section evaluates the capability of the different PCPT interpretation methods for predicting
the measured constrained modulus (M), overconsolidation ratio (OCR), and the vertical
v
). The values predicted from different interpretation methods were
first compared with the measured values obtained from laboratory tests to determine the best fit
line. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of predicted to measured values were also
calculated and used in the evaluation as described below.
Constrained Modulus (M)
In each site, PCPTs were conducted close to the drilled boreholes. The profiles of PCPT test data
were used to calculate the average cone tip resistance (q
t
) values that corresponded to the same
depths of the extracted shelby tube samples in order to predict the constrained modulus (M)
values using the four prediction methods. The average values of total overburden pressure (
vo
)
needed for some methods were estimated from the soil borings. The investigated PCPT
interpretation methods were Kulhawy and Mayne [9], Jones and Rust [10], Sanglerat [7], and
Senneset et al. [8]. The predicted constrained modulus (M
p
) from the different PCPT
interpretation methods were compared with the measured constrained modulus (M
m
) obtained
from the oedometer one-dimensional consolidation laboratory tests conducted on samples
recovered from boreholes. The results of this comparison are shown in figures 46 through 49 for
Kulhawy and Mayne [9], Jones and Rust [10], Sanglerat [7], and Senneset et al. [8], respectively.
The figures also present the best fit line (M
fit
) of the predicted (M
p
) to measured constrained
modulus (M
m
) and the corresponding coefficients of determination (R
2
). The arithmetic mean
and standard deviation of predicted to measured constrained modulus ratio (M
p
/M
m
), along with
the best fit calculations are summarized in table 6. The results of this analysis and comparison
demonstrate that the Kulhawy and Mayne [9] and Senneset et al. [8] methods overpredict the
constrained modulus by a factor of 1.5 to 2, while the Jones and Rust [10] method tends to
underpredict the constrained modulus. The Sanglerat [7] method, however, shows good
prediction of the measured constrained modulus with best fit line of (M
fit
/M
m
) =1.07 and R
2

=0.91. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation for Sanglerat [7] method also show the same
result. However, in this method, there is a wide range of factors to select depending on the q
c

value within wide ranges given in a table, which is subjected to the judgment of the user. In this
analysis, the author selected the factor based on the value of q
c
within the given interval for the
given soil type using interpolation.
58
Table 6
Evaluation summary of different PCPT methods for predicting M

Best fit calculations

Arithmetic calculations
M
p
/M
m

Method

M
fit
/M
m

R
2

Mean

Standard
Deviation
Kulhawy and Mayne [9] 2.16 0.87 2.05 0.81
Jones and Rust [10] 0.80 0.90 0.78 0.26
Sanglerat [7] 1.07 0.91 1.23 0.43
Senneset et al. [8] 1.57 0.88 1.51 0.55

To examine the possibility for better correlations to estimate the constrained modulus from
PCPT data, the corrected cone tip resistance (q
t
) and the net cone tip resistance (q
t

vo
) were
plotted against the measured constrained modulus as shown in figures 50 and 51. A linear
correlation was obtained between M and q
t
as follows:
M = 3.15 q
t
, with R
2
= 0.91 (37)
And the following linear correlation was also obtained between M and (q
t

vo
) given as:
M = 3.58 (q
t

vo
) , with R
2
= 0.88 (38)
The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of (M
p
/M
m
) are 0.98 and 0.33 for the first
correlation (M = 3.15 q
t
), and 1.01 and 0.52 for the second correlation (M = 3.58 (q
t

vo
)).
Figures 52 through 58 compare the profiles with depth of laboratory measured constrained
modulus and the predicted constrained modulus using the different interpretation methods
including the proposed correlations for the different investigated sites. The comparison figures
clearly show that the proposed two relations predicted the measured constrained modulus (M) of
the different sites better than the other PCPT interpretation methods, as expected. However, the
proposed relations should be verified using other sites.

59
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Measured M (MPa)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M

(
M
P
a
)
M
fit
= 2.16 * M
m
R
2
= 0.87
P
e
r
f
e
c
t

F
it

Figure 46
Measured versus predicted M using Kulhawy and Mayne [9]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Measured M (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M

(
M
P
a
)
M
fit
= 0.80 * M
m
R
2
= 0.90
p
e
r
f
e
c
t

F
i
t

Figure 47
Measured versus predicted M using Jones and Rust [10]
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Measured M (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M

(
M
P
a
)
M
fit
= 1.07 * M
m
R
2
= 0.91
p
e
r
f
e
c
t

F
i
t

Figure 48
Measured versus predicted M using Sanglerat [7]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Measured M (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

M

(
M
P
a
)
M
fit
= 1.57 * M
m
R
2
= 0.88
p
e
r
f
e
c
t

F
i
t

Figure 49
Measured versus predicted M using Senneset et al. [8]

61
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
q
t
(MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

M

(
M
P
a
)
M = 3.15 * q
t
R
2
= 0.91

Figure 50
q
t
versus measured M

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(q
t
-
vo
) (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

M

(
M
P
a
)
M = 3.58 * (q
t
-
vo
)
R
2
= 0.88

Figure 51
(q
t

vo
) versus measured M
62
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Constrained Modulus, M (MPa)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)
M=3.15 q
t
Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
Jones & Rust (1995)
Sanglerat (1972)
Senneset et al. (1988)

Figure 52
Measured versus predicted M for Manwell Bridge - Evangeline site

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)
M=3.15 q
t
Jones & Rust (1995)
Sanglerat (1972)

Figure 53
Measured versus predicted M for US 90LA 88 - New Iberia site

63
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)
M=3.15 q
t
Jones and Rust (1995)
Sanglerat (1972)

Figure 54
Measured versus predicted M for LA Peans canal bridge - Lafourche site

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)
M=3.15 q
t
Jones and Rust (1995)
Sanglerat (1972)

Figure 55
Measured versus predicted M for PRF site
64
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)
M=3.15 q
t
Sanglerat (1972)

Figure 56
Measured versus predicted M for Pearl River Bridge site

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)
M=3.15 q
t
Jones & Rust (1995)
Sanglerat (1972)

Figure 57
Measured versus predicted M for East Airport Baton Rouge site

65
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)
M=3.15 q
t
Jones & Rust (1995)
Sanglerat (1972)

Figure 58
Measured versus predicted M for Flat River Bossier site
66
Overconsolidation Ratio
Four different PCPT methods were selected to evaluated their capability to reliably predict the
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) utilizing the PCPT test data. These methods were the
Schmertmann [16] method using undrained shear strength, the Kulhawy and Mayne [9] method
using the normalized net tip resistance, and the Chen and Mayne [18] methods using pore
pressure measurements either at the cone tip (u
1
) or at the cone base (u
2
). In order to evaluate
these methods, the profiles of PCPT test data obtained from the investigated sites were used to
calculate the average q
t
, u
1
, and u
2
values that corresponded to the depths of the extracted
samples. The profiles were also used to predict the OCR values using the different PCPT
interpretation methods. The total and effective overburden pressure (
vo
, '
vo
) were calculated
from the soil borings. The predicted OCR was then compared with the measured OCR obtained
from the oedometer laboratory tests conducted on samples recovered from boreholes. Figures 59
through 62 present the comparison between the measured to predicted OCR for Schmertmann
[16], Kulhawy and Mayne [9], Chen and Mayne [18] using u
1
, and Chen and Mayne [18] using
u
2
, respectively. The best fit line of the predicted to the measured overconsolidation ratio
(OCR
fit
/OCR
m
) and the corresponding coefficients of determination (R
2
) for the different
methods were calculated and presented in the figures and in table 7. The arithmetic mean and
standard deviation of predicted to measured overconsolidation ratio (OCR
p
/OCR
m
) were also
calculated and summarized in table 7.
The results of the comparison and arithmetic analysis clearly indicate that all the investigated
PCPT prediction methods overestimate the OCR by a factor ranging from 2.0 times for Kulhawy
and Mayne [9] to 4.27 times for Chen and Mayne [18] using u
1
. Therefore, the possibility of
having better correlations between PCPT data and measured OCR were examined. For this
purpose, the measured OCR were compared with (q
t
u
1
)/'
vo
and (q
t

vo
)/'
vo
ratios as shown
in figures 63 and 64, respectively. A linear correlation was obtained between OCR and (q
t
u
1
) /
'
vo
as follows:
OCR = 0.161 (q
t
u
1
) / '
vo
, with R
2
= 0.91 (39)
And the following linear correlation was also obtained between OCR and (q
t

vo
) / '
vo
as:
OCR = 0.152 (q
t
vo
) / '
vo
, with R
2
= 0.90 (40)
The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the predicted to measured OCR (OCR
p
/OCR
m
) are
0.98 and 0.44 for the first correlation, and 1.05 and 0.56 for the second correlation. It should be

67
noted here that the second correlation is closer to the findings of Powell et al. for non-fissured
clay (with k
t
= 0.2 to 0.24) than any the other available correlation [29].
The profile of laboratory-measured OCR using oedometer tests for the different investigated
sites was compared with the predicted OCR using the different PCPT interpretation methods as
well as the two proposed correlations as shown in figures 65 through 71. As expected, for the
different sites, the two proposed relations predicted of the measured OCR better than the other
methods. The validity of these relations needs to be verified for other sites.

Table 7
Evaluation summary of different PCPT methods for predicting OCR


Arithmetic calculations
OCR
p
/OCR
m

Method

OCR
fit
/OCR
m

R
2

Mean

Standard
Deviation
Schmertmann [16] 3.25 0.88 2.43 1.99
Kulhawy and Mayne [9] 2.00 0.89 2.53 1.80
Chen and Mayne [18] u
1
4.27 0.92 4.04 2.20
Chen and Mayne [18] u
2
2.79 0.91 3.02 1.88

68
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Measured OCR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

O
C
R
OCR
fit
= 3.25* OCR
m
R
2
= 0.88

Figure 59
Measured versus predicted OCR using Schmertmann [16]

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Measured OCR
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

O
C
R
OCR
fit
= 2.0* OCR
m
R
2
= 0.89

Figure 60
Measured versus predicted OCR using Kulhawy and Mayne [19]

69
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Measured OCR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

O
C
R
OCR
fit
= 4.27* OCR
m
R
2
= 0.92

Figure 61
Measured versus predicted OCR using Chen and Mayne [18] - u
1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Measured OCR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

O
C
R
OCR
fit
= 2.79* OCR
m
R
2
= 0.91

Figure 62
Measured versus predicted OCR using Chen and Mayne [18] - u
2

70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
'
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
M
e
s
a
u
r
e
d

O
C
R
OCR = 0.161* [ (q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
' ]
R
2
= 0.91

Figure 63
Measured OCR versus (q
t
- u
1
) / '
vo

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
'
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

O
C
R
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
R
2
= 0.90

Figure 64
Measured OCR versus (q
t
-
vo
) / '
vo

71
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Overconsolidation ratio, OCR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
OCR = 0.161* [ (q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
' ]
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
Schmertmann (1975)
Chen & Mayne (1994) - u
1
2

Figure 65
Measured versus predicted OCR for Manwell Bridge - Evangeline site

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
OCR = 0.161* [ (q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
' ]
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
Schmertmann (1975)
1
2

Figure 66
Measured versus predicted OCR for US 90LA 88 - New Iberia site
72
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
OCR = 0.161* [ (q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
' ]
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
Schmertmann (1975)
1
2

Figure 67
Measured versus predicted OCR for LA Peans canal bridge - Lafourche site

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
OCR = 0.161* [ (q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
' ]
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
Schmertmann (1975)
1
2

Figure 68
Measured versus predicted OCR for PRF site

73
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
OCR = 0.161* [ (q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
' ]
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
Schmertmann (1975)
1
2

Figure 69
Measured versus predicted OCR for Pearl River Bridge site

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
OCR = 0.161* [ (q
t
- u
1
) /
vo
' ]
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
Schmertmann (1975)
1
2

Figure 70
Measured versus predicted OCR for East Airport Baton Rouge site
74
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
OCR = 0.152 * [ (q
t
-
vo
) /
vo
' ]
Schmertmann (1975)

Figure 71
Measured versus predicted OCR for Flat River Bossier site

75
Coefficient of Consolidation
During PCPT tests, penetration was stopped at pre-specified depths to conduct dissipation tests.
Several dissipation tests were performed at different depths in each of the investigated sites. The
dissipation test curves obtained from the different sites at different depths were presented earlier.
The horizontal coefficient of consolidation (c
h
) of the soil can be estimated by evaluating the
characteristic shape of the dissipation curves. When investigating the shapes of dissipation
curves, one can distinguish between three different types. Type I curves are the typical
dissipation curve that show a gradual decrease of excess pore pressure with time. This type of
curve is usually obtained in normally consolidated soils for both u
1
and u
2
measurements. Type
II curves show a sudden reduction in excess pore pressure at the early stages of dissipation
mainly due to unloading in overconsolidated soils with pore pressure measurement at the cone
tip (u
1
) (figure 72a). Once the pore pressure reduction occurs, type II curves follow the same
trend as type I curves. Type III curves are usually obtained for pore pressure measurements
behind the tip (u
2
and u
3
) in overconsolidation soils. This is mainly due to the redistribution of
excess pore pressure that usually occurs around the cone at the early stages of dissipation before
it dissipates to the surrounding media. In this type of dissipation curve, the excess pore pressure
continues to increase after penetration has stopped and before the real dissipation starts (figure
72b). It is interesting to notice that, in this study, all three types of dissipation curves were
obtained for over-and normally-consolidated soils with pore pressure measurement at the cone
tip (u
1
). Sully et al. [47] evaluated type II and III dissipation curves and suggested applying
certain corrections before interpreting these curves by evaluating the time t
c
as described in
figure 72. The time t
c
is taken as the new zero time and the corresponding pore pressure is taken
as the peak initial excess pore pressure for the dissipation curve.
The results of piezocone dissipation tests were first used to estimate the in-situ horizontal
h
) using the different PCPT interpretation methods. These
interpretation methods included the following methods: Teh and Houlsby [1], Levadoux and
Baligh [13], Robertson and Campanella [15], Teh [14], Senneset et al. [12] (two methods), and
Jones and Rust [10]. The vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) can then be calculated from c
h

values using the relation proposed by Levadoux and Baligh [13] which is based on the (k
v
/k
h
)
ratio. In this study, one-dimensional oedometer consolidation tests were conducted on samples
oriented both vertically and horizontally in order to evaluate the vertical to horizontal coefficient
of consolidations (c
v
/c
h
) as well as the (k
v
/k
h
) ratio. The predicted vertical coefficient of
consolidation (c
v
) obtained from the different PCPT interpretation methods was compared with
76
c
v
values obtained from laboratory one-dimensional consolidation tests as shown in figures 73
through 79. The best fit line of the predicted to measured logarithmic vertical coefficient of
consolidation ratios [Log(c
v-Fit
) / Log(c
v-m
)] and the corresponding coefficients of determination
(R
2
) for the different interpretation methods were calculated and presented in the figures and in
table 8. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the predicted to measured [Log(c
v-p
) /
Log(c
v-m
)] were also calculated and summarized in table 8. Evaluating the comparison plots
shows that there are wide variations between the measured and the predicted c
v
values; these
variations will reflect on the reliability of these methods to predict the c
v
values. However, this
finding is consistent with other comparisons reported in the literature and considered acceptable
and within the range of variations of laboratory-calculated c
v
values [e.g., 48]. So it is not clear
here whether this scatter is due to variation in PCPT dissipations or from laboratory variation.
The results of the best fit relation and the arithmetic analysis indicate that the Teh and Houlsby
[1] and Teh [14] methods better predict the measured vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
)
compared to the other prediction methods, as described in table 8. The Log (c
v-Fit
)/Log(c
v-m
) of
the best fit line and the corresponding coefficient of determination (R
2
) are (1.05, 0.88) and
(0.98, 0.89) for the Teh and Houlsby [1] and Teh [14] methods, respectively. And the arithmetic
mean and standard deviation of Log(c
v-p
)/Log(c
v-m
) are (1.07, 0.19) and (0.99, 0.22) for Teh and
Houlsby [1] and Teh [1], respectively. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of Log(c
v-
p
)/Log(c
v-m
) for Levadoux and Baligh [13], Robertson and Campanella [15], Senneset et al. [12]
method a and method b, and Jones and Rust [10] methods are (0.75, 0.20), (0.73, 0.19), (0.82,
0.20), (0.85, 0.19) and (0.71, 0.20), respectively.
For the different investigated sites (except the Bossier site), the profile of measured c
v
values
obtained from the laboratory consolidation tests are compared with the c
v
values predicted using
the different PCPT interpretation methods and are presented in figures 80 through 85. The
figures further confirm that the Teh and Houlsby [1] and Teh [14] methods predict the c
v

measured values better than the other PCPT interpretation methods.

77
Table 8
Evaluation summary of different PCPT methods for predicting c
v


Arithmetic calculations of
Log(c
v-p
)/ Log(c
v-m
)

Method

Log(c
v-Fit
)/ Log(c
v-m
)

R
2

Mean
(cm
2
/sec)

Standard
Deviation
Teh and Houlsby [1] 1.05 0.88 1.07 0.19
Levadoux and Baligh [13] 0.74 0.85 0.75 0.20
Robertson and Campanella
[15]
0.72 0.84 0.73 0.19
Teh [14] 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.22
Senneset et al. [12] -a 0.81 0.85 0.82 0.20
Senneset et al. [12] -b 0.84 0.86 0.85 0.19
Jones and Rust [10] 0.71 0.84 0.71 0.20

78

(a)

(b)

Figure 72
Types II and III of dissipation curves [47]

79
1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1
Mesaured C
v
(cm
2
/sec)
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
v

(
c
m
2
/
s
e
c
)

P
e
r
f
e
c
t

f
i
t
log(c
v-Fit
) = 1.05 log (c
v-m
)
R
2
= 0.88

Figure 73
Measured versus predicted c
v
using Teh and Houlsby [1] method

1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Mesaured C
v
(cm
2
/sec)
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
1.0E+0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
v

(
c
m
2
/
s
e
c
)

P
e
r
f
e
c
t

f
i
t
log(c
v-fit
) = 0.74 log (c
v-m
)
R
2
= 0.85

Figure 74
v
using Levadoux and Baligh [13] method
80
1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Mesaured C
v
(cm
2
/sec)
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
1.0E+0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
v

(
c
m
2
/
s
e
c
)
P
e
r
f
e
c
t

f
i
t
log(c
v-fit
) = 0.72 log (c
v-m
)
R
2
= 0.84

Figure 75
v
using Robertson and Campanella [15] method

1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1
Measured C
v
(cm
2
/sec)
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
v

(
c
m
2
/
s
e
c
)

P
e
r
f
e
c
t

f
i
t
log(c
v-fit
) = 0.98 log (c
v-m
)
R
2
= 0.89

Figure 76
v
using Teh [14] method

81
1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Mesaured C
v
(cm
2
/sec)
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
1.0E+0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
v

(
c
m
2
/
s
e
c
)

P
e
r
f
e
c
t

f
i
t
log(c
v-fit
) = 0.81 log (c
v-m
)
R
2
= 0.85

Figure 77
v
using Senneset et al. [12] method-a

1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Mesaured C
v
(cm
2
/sec)
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
1.0E+0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
v

(
c
m
2
/
s
e
c
)

P
e
r
f
e
c
t

f
i
t
log(c
v-fit
) = 0.84 log (c
v-m
)
R
2
= 0.86

Figure 78
v
using Senneset et al. [12] method-b
82

1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Mesaured C
v
(cm
2
/sec)
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
1.0E-3
1.0E-2
1.0E-1
1.0E+0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

C
v

(
c
m
2
/
s
e
c
)

P
e
r
f
e
c
t

f
i
t
log(c
v-fit
) = 0.71 log (c
v-m
)
R
2
= 0.84

Figure 79
v
using Jones and Rust [10] method

1.00E-5 1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1 1.00E+0
Coefficient of consolidation, c
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
Teh & Houlsby (1991)
Levadoux & Baligh (1986)
Teh (1987)
Robertson et al. (1992)
Senneset et al. (1982) - a
Senneset et al. (1982) - b
Jones & Rust (1995)

Figure 80
v
for Manwell Bridge - Evangeline site

83

1.00E-5 1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
Teh (1987)
Jones & Rust (1995)

Figure 81
v
for US 90LA 88 - New Iberia site

1.00E-5 1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
Teh (1987)
Jones & Rust (1995)

Figure 82
v
for LA Peans canal bridge - Lafourche site
84

1.00E-5 1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
Teh (1987)
Jones & Rust (1995)

Figure 83
v
for PRF site

1.00E-5 1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1 1.00E+0
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
Teh (1987)
Jones & Rust (1995)

Figure 84
v
for Pearl River Bridge site

85

1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1 1.00E+0
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Measured
Teh (1987)
Jones & Rust (1995)

Figure 85
v
for East Airport Baton Rouge site
86
Verification

The results of this study were verified by comparing the predicted consolidation settlements with
the measured field settlements in three cases: the settlement of the LTRC test wall at the PRF
site, the settlement of the west approach of the embankment at John Darnell Road at LA 88, and
the settlement of the east approach of the embankment at the interchange of I-10 with LA
Avenue.
LTRC Test Wall
The LTRC test wall (figure 86) is an instrumented reinforced-soil wall constructed at the PRF
site using silty-clay soil backfill. Its purpose is to evaluate the performance of geosynthetic-
reinforced walls constructed using low quality backfill material over soft clay foundation. The
wall is 6 m high and 48 m long. The main objectives from the walls construction were to
evaluate the effect of reinforcement properties on the deformation and stress distribution in the
wall, and to study the soil-geosynthetics interaction mechanism [49]. Another secondary
objective of the construction of the test wall was to evaluate its deformation due to the settlement
of the soft clay foundation soil. Therefore, the settlement of the soft foundations under the wall
was monitored during and after the construction using two horizontal inclinometer pipes
installed under the wall in the longitudinal and transverse directions of the wall, as shown in
figure 87. The results of the horizontal inclinometers provided the profiles of the soil settlement
under the wall.
The vertical settlement profile of the wall along the transverse section was estimated with the
laboratory consolidation test results and the PCPT test data by using equation 4. The foundation
soil properties and the results of in-situ PCPT and dissipation tests were presented earlier. To
calculate the settlement using equation 4, the constrained modulus (M) and the applied load ()
for each soil layer needed to be determined. The constrained modulus (M), for each soil layer
was predicted using the Sanglerat [7] method and the proposed correlation (M = 3.58 (q
t

vo
)),
with q
t
representing the average q
t
value of the soil layer. The applied stress () resulting from
wall weight was calculated from the concept of vertical stress distribution due to embankment
loading [50]. The vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) predicted using the Teh and Houlsby
[1] method was used to describe the time rate of consolidation. The PCPT-predicted settlements
(using Sanglerat [7] and proposed correlations of M) were compared with laboratory-calculated
settlements and field-measured settlements using the transverse horizontal inclinometer as
shown in figure 88. The figure shows that the proposed PCPT interpretation method predicted

87
the total consolidation settlement better than the Sanglerat [7] PCPT method and the laboratory
methods.

Figure 86
View of the pullout boxes at the vertical facing of the wall [49]

Figure 87
Layout of horizontal inclinometers under the wall [49]
88

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Distance, X (m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)
X
Measured (End of construction)
Measured (2 years)
Lab predicted (6 months)
Lab predicted (Total)
PCPT predicted -proposed (6 months)
PCPT predicted - proposed (Total)
PCPT Predicted - Sanglerat (6 months)
PCPT Predicted - Sanglerat (Total)

Figure 88
Comparison between PCPT-predicted, laboratory-calculated, and field-measured
settlements for the LTRC test wall

John Darnell Site
A 2.56 m (8.4 ft) embankment constructed at the west approach of the John Darnell Road
intersection with LA 88 was also used for verification. A surcharge height of 0.91 m (3 ft.) and
wick drains with a 1.52 m (5 ft.) triangular spacing were used to accelerate the consolidation
settlement. The embankment was instrumented with settlement plates to monitor the settlement
with time. Five PCPT tests were conducted around the embankment down to 18m. Three PCPT
tests were conducted using the u
1
measurement while the other two PCPT tests were conducted
using the u
2
measurement. The profiles of PCPT test results and the corresponding CPT soil
classification are presented in figure 89. The CPT soil classification indicates that the soil profile
consists of silty clay soils down to about 13.5m. Two of the PCPT tests (with the u
1

measurement) were selected to conduct dissipation tests at different depths one test in each side
of the embankment. Figures 90 and 91 depict the results of dissipation tests.
In order to predict the consolidation settlement from the PCPT data, the constrained modulus
(M) and the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) need to be evaluated first. The results of the
PCPT test data (mainly the profile of q
t
) were used to calculate the profile of constrained
modulus (M) using the Sanglerat [7] method and the proposed correlation (equation 38). The
profile of constrained modulus (M) with depth is presented in figure 92. The Teh and Houlsby

89
[1] method was used to estimate the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) from dissipation
test curves in order to describe the time rate of consolidation. The profile of predicted c
v
values
with depth is shown in figure 93. The PCPT correlated M and c
v
were then used to predicted the
consolidation settlement with time from PCPT data. The PCPT predicted consolidation
settlements are compared with the measured field settlements from settlement plates and with the
laboratory-calculated settlements, as shown in figure 94. The comparison figure of this site
shows that the PCPT interpretation methods (Sanglerat [7] and proposed correlations) and the
laboratory calculations closely predicted the total consolidation settlement.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 10 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clayey
Sandy
U1

Figure 89
Results of PCPT tests at John Darnell Road LA 88 site
90
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
6.76 m
3.04 m
5.2 m
9.54 m
11.46 m
12.88 m

Figure 90
Dissipation test results at John Darnell site first location
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
6.7 m
13.5m
3.38 m
4.64 m 8.8 m

Figure 91
Dissipation test results at John Darnell site second location

91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
M = 3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)

Figure 92
Predicted constrained modulus (M) at John Darnell site

1.00E-5 1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Teh and Houlsby (1991)
Test location 1
Test location 2

Figure 93
Predicted vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) at John Darnell site
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Time (Days)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)
Measured
Lab - Prediction
PCPT- Prediction (Proposed)
PCPT- Prediction (Sanglerat)

Figure 94
Comparison between PCPT-predicted, laboratory-calculated, and field measured
settlements for the embankment at John Darnell Road LA 88
Louisiana Avenue Site
The third site selected for verification was the east approach of a 6.70 m (22 ft.) high
embankment constructed at the intersection of LA Avenue with I-10, near Lafayette. A
surcharge of 0.91 m (3 ft.) in height was placed to accelerate the consolidation settlement. In
addition, wick drains were also installed with 2.1 m (5 ft.) triangular spacing and 14.63m length.
Settlement plates were instrumented to monitor the settlement of the embankment over time. At
this site, six PCPT tests were conducted around the embankment down to 18m. Three PCPT tests
were conducted using the u
1
measurement and three PCPT tests were conducted using the u
2

measurement. Figure 95 presents the profiles of PCPT test measurements. The CPT soil
classification shows that the soil deposit consists of clayey soil from surface to about 12 m. Two
of the PCPT tests (with u
1
measurement) were selected to conduct the dissipation tests. One set
of dissipation tests was conducted in each side of the embankment. The results of dissipation
tests are shown in figures 96 and 97 for the two locations.
The results of the PCPT test data (q
t
) were used to calculate the profile of constrained modulus
(M) with depth using Sanglerat [7] method and the proposed correlation (equation 38), as shown
in figure 98. The results of dissipation tests were also used to predict the profile of the vertical

93
v
) with depth using the Teh and Houlsby [1] method. Figure 99
presents the profile of predicted c
v
values with depth from two locations. The total consolidation
settlement was calculated from the predicted M values and using equation 4, while the time rate
of consolidation was evaluated using the predicted c
v
values from dissipation tests. Figure 100
depicts the comparison between the PCPT predicted consolidation settlements, the measured
field settlements from settlement plates, and the laboratory-calculated settlements. The
comparison shows that the proposed PCPT interpretation method can predict the total
consolidation settlement better than the Sanglerat [7] PCPT method and the laboratory
calculations.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Rf (%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Pore Pressure (MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clayey
Sandy
U1

Figure 95
Results of PCPT tests at LA Avenue site
94
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
7.98 m
3.98 m
6.0 m
10.86 m
11.8 m

Figure 96
Dissipation test results at LA Avenue site first location
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
x
c
e
s
s

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
u
/

u
i
)
Depth
1.98 m
7.86 m
9.94 m
10.38 m
5.98 m
4.14 m

Figure 97
Dissipation test results at LA Avenue site second location

95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
M=3.58 (q
t
-
vo
)

Figure 98
Predicted constrained modulus (M) at LA Avenue site

1.00E-5 1.00E-4 1.00E-3 1.00E-2 1.00E-1
v
(cm
2
/sec)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Teh and Houlsby (1991)
Test location 1
Test location 2

Figure 99
Predicted vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
)
96

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (Days)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)
Measured
Lab - Prediction
PCPT- Prediction (Proposed)
PCPT- Prediction (Sanglerat)

Figure 100
Comparison between PCPT-predicted, laboratory-calculated, and field-measured
settlements for the embankment at LA Avenue site

97
CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the evaluation of the current PCPT interpretation methods capability to
reasonably predict the consolidation parameters of cohesive soils using the piezocone
penetration and dissipation tests. These parameters are the constrained modulus (M), the vertical
v
) and the overconsolidation ratio (OCR). Seven sites in Louisiana
were used in this study. At each site, in-situ PCPTs were performed and dissipation tests were
conducted at different penetration depths. Undisturbed shelby tube samples collected adjacent to
the PCPT tests were used to calculate the laboratory reference soil parameters from the results of
one-dimensional oedometer consolidation tests. The predicted values of M, c
v
, and OCR obtained
from the different PCPT interpretation methods were compared with the laboratory-calculated
reference parameters. The reliability of the different interpretation methods was evaluated and
new correlations for M and OCR were also developed. The result of this study was verified by
comparing settlement predicted from PCPT test data with the measured settlements in three
selected sites. Based on this study, the following conclusions can be drawn.
The predicted constrained modulus (M
p
) obtained from four PCPT interpretation methods,
Kulhawy and Mayne [9], Jones and Rust [10], Sanglerat [7], and Senneset et al. [8], were
compared with the measured constrained modulus (M
m
) from the oedometer laboratory tests.
Then the best fit line of (M
p
/M
m
) and the corresponding coefficient of determination (R
2
) were
determined. The results of comparison and arithmetic analysis (mean and standard deviation)
showed that the Sanglerat [7] method can predict M better than the other three methods. The
Kulhawy and Mayne [9] and Senneset et al. [8] methods, however, overpredict the constrained
modulus by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 times, while the Jones and Rust [10] method underpredicts the
constrained modulus by a factor of 0.8 times. Two linear correlations were also developed
between M and both the corrected cone tip resistance (q
t
) and the net cone tip resistance (q
t

vo
). The comparison between the profiles of laboratory-measured M and the predicted M from
the different interpretation methods including the proposed correlations for the different sites
showed that the two proposed relations can predict M better than the other methods. However,
this result is expected since these relations were developed using the current data. Therefore, the
proposed relations need to be validated using data from new selected sites.
Four different PCPT methods were selected and evaluated for their capability to predict the
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) using the PCPT test data. These methods are the Schmertmann
[16] method, the Kulhawy and Mayne [9] method, and the Chen and Mayne [18] methods using
98
pore pressure at the cone tip (u
1
) and at the cone base (u
2
). The predicted OCRs from different
methods were then compared with the measured OCRs obtained from the oedometer
consolidation laboratory tests; then the best fit line and the corresponding R
2
were determined.
The results of comparison and arithmetic analysis indicated clearly that all the PCPT
interpretation methods overestimated the OCR by a factor ranging from 2.0 times for Kulhawy
and Mayne [9] to 4.27 times for Chen and Mayne [18] using u
1
. Possible correlations between
the measured OCR and both (q
t
u
1
) / '
vo
and (q
t

vo
) / '
vo
ratios were examined, and linear
correlations were obtained. The profile of laboratory-measured OCR using oedometer tests for
the different investigated sites was compared with the predicted OCR using the different PCPT
interpretation methods including the proposed two correlations. This comparison indicated that
the proposed two relations give better prediction of the measured OCR than the other methods.
Again, this result is also expected, and the proposed relations need to be validated using data
from new sites.
The results of dissipation tests at each site were used to estimate the horizontal coefficient of
consolidation (c
h
) using the different PCPT interpretation methods. The vertical coefficient of
consolidation (c
v
) was then calculated from c
h
values using the ratios (c
v
/c
h
, k
v
/k
h
) from the
results of one-dimensional consolidation tests conducted on samples oriented both vertically and
horizontally. The logarithmic c
v
values predicted from the different interpretation methods were
compared with logarithmic c
v
values obtained from laboratory consolidation tests. The
interpretation methods include the following methods: The Teh and Houlsby [1], Levadoux and
Baligh [13], Robertson and Campanella [15], Teh [14], Senneset et al. [12] methods a and b, and
Jones and Rust [10]. For the different methods, the best fit line of the predicted to measured
logarithmic c
v
and the corresponding R
2
were calculated along with the arithmetic mean and
standard deviation of the predicted to measured logarithmic c
v
[Log(c
v-p
) / Log(c
v-m
)]. The results
of comparison plots show wide scatters between the measured and the predicted Log c
v
values,
which might question the reliability of these methods to predict the c
v
values. This scatter,
however, is consistent with other comparisons reported in the literature and can be considered
acceptable compared to the variation of c
v
values obtained from laboratory tests [48]. The results
of the best fit line and the arithmetic analysis indicated that the Teh and Houlsby [1] and Teh
[14] methods can predict the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) better than the other
methods. Comparing the profiles of the measured c
v
values and the predicted c
v
values using the
different interpretation methods confirmed that the Teh and Houlsby [1] and Teh [14] methods
can predict c
v
values better than the other methods.

99
The findings of this study were verified by comparing the predicted settlements using the
proposed PCPT correlation, the Sanglerat [7] PCPT method, laboratory-calculated settlement,
and the actual field settlements measured using settlement plates at three selected sites. The
results of this verification show that the proposed PCPT method can predict the total settlement
better than Sanglerat [7] PCPT method and the laboratory-calculated settlement from parameters
obtained from the consolidation tests.

100

101
RECOMMENDATIONS
The availability of the cone penetration test systems at LA DOTD will eventually make the
estimation of the magnitude and time rate of settlement easier, faster, cheaper, and more reliable
than the expensive and time-consuming sampling and subsequent laboratory testing of soil
samples. In addition, in-situ PCPT tests can provide the data needed to estimate the soil
parameters in soils where it is impossible to obtain adequate sampling. Therefore, based on the
results of this study, it is recommended that the LA DOTD engineers gradually start to
implement the PCPT technology, particularly to estimate the consolidation settlement of fine-
grained soils, in conjunction with the traditional laboratory calculation of settlements. The
comparison between the consolidation settlements predicted from the PCPT data, the calculated
settlements from laboratory consolidation parameters, and the field-measured settlements should
be continued until the LA DOTD engineers build enough confidence in the PCPT interpretation
methods. With increasing confidence and experience, LA DOTD engineers can move toward
replacing conventional subsurface exploration with piezocone penetration and dissipation tests
with the estimation of consolidation settlement.
To facilitate the use of the PCPT methods to estimate the magnitude and time rate of
consolidation settlement of fine-grained soils, it is highly recommended that a friendly computer
program be developed to profile the consolidation characteristics of soil layers with depth. The
constrained modulus of each soil layer can be estimated using the piezocone penetration test data
(q
c
, u
1
), while the coefficient of consolidation can be estimated from the piezocone dissipation
curves obtained at different penetration depths. The development of this program should
examine the possibility of using soil properties and measured pore pressures to predict a
continuous profile of the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) with depth and to detect thin
drainage layers.
It is recommended that the relations proposed in this study to estimate the constrained modulus
(M) and the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) from PCPT data be validated. The Teh and Houlsby
[1] method usedto estimate the vertical coefficient of consolidation (c
v
) should be validated by
comparing the measured values at new selected sites with the predicted values obtained from the
proposed relations.
102
A training manual and workshops will be needed to train the LA DOTD engineers to use the
PCPT methods for evaluating the consolidation parameters needed to estimate total fin-grained
soil settlement and time rate.

103
REFERENCES

1. Teh, C. I. and Houlsby, G. T. An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test in
Clay, Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1991, pp. 17-34.
2. Row, P. W., and Barden, L. A New Consolidation Cell, Geotechnique, London, Vol.
16, No. 2, 1966, pp. 162-170.
3. Row, P. W. The Relevance of Soil Fabric to Site Investigation Practice, 12th Rankine
Lecture, Geotechnique, London, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1972, pp. 195-200.
4. Grisak, G. E., and Cherry, J. A. Hydrologic Characteristics and Response of Fractured
Till and Clay Confining a Shallow Aquifer. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 12,
No. 1, 1975, pp. 23-43.
5. Bishop, A. W., and Al-Dhahir, Z. A. Some Comparisons between Laboratory Tests, In
Situ Tests and Full Scale Performance, with Special Reference to Hydraulic conductivity
and Coefficient of Consolidation, Proceedings, Conference on In Situ Investigations in
Soils and Rocks, British Geotechnical Society of London, May, 1970, pp. 251-264.
6. Baligh, M. M., and Levadoux, J. N. Consolidation after Undrained Piezocone
Penetration. II: Interpretation, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
112(7), 1986, pp. 727-745.
7. Sanglerat, G. The Penetration and Soil Exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1972, 464 pp.
8. Senneset, K., Sandven, R., Lunne, T., By, T., and Amundsen, T. Piezocone Tests in
Silty Soils, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Penetration Testing,
ISOPT-1, Balkema Pub, Rotterdam, 1988, pp. 955-966.
9. Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. H. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI. 1990.
10. Jones, G. A., and Rust, E. Piezocone Settlement Prediction Parameters for
Embankments on Alluvium, Proc. Intern. Symp. on Penetration Testing, CPT 95,
Linkoping, Sweden, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 501-508.
11. Torstensson, B. A. The Pore Pressure Probe, Paper 34, Geotechnical Meeting,
Norwegian Geotechnical Society, Oslo, Norway, 1977, pp. 34.1-34.15.
12. Senneset, K., Janbu, K. and Svano, G. Strength and Deformation Parameters from
Cone Penetration Tests, Proc. 2
nd
European Symp. on Penetration Testing, ESOPT II,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 2, 1982, pp. 863-870.
104
13. Levadoux J. N, and Baligh, M. M. Consolidation after Undrained Piezocone
Penetration. II: Prediction, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112(7),
1986, pp. 707-726.
14. Teh, C. I. An Analytical Study of the Cone Penetration Test, D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford
University, 1987.
15. Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. Guidelines for Geotechnical Design Using CPT
and CPTU. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Department of Civil
Engineering, Soil Mechanics Series 120, 1988.
16. Schmertmann, J. H. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test, United States Department of
Transport, Report FHWA TS-78-209, 1978, 145 pp.
17. Konrad, J. M., and Law, K. T. Preconsolidation Pressure from Piezocone Tests in
Marine Clays, Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 2, 1987, pp. 177-190.
18. Chen, B. S., and Mayne, P. W. Profiling the Overconsolidation Ratio of Clay by
Piezocone Tests, Report GIT-CEEGEO-94-1. Georgia Tech Research Corporation and
Gergia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and Envirenmental Eng., GA, 1994.
19. Sully, J. P., Campanella, R. G. and Robertson, P. K. Overconsolidation Ratio of Clays
from Penetration Pore Pressure, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 114,
No. 2, 1988, pp. 209-216.
20. Janbu, N. Soil Compressibility as Determined by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests,
Proceedings of the European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Wiesbaden, 1, 1963, pp. 19-25.
21. Torstensson, B. A. Pore Pressure Sounding Instrument, Proc., ASCE Special
Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Vol. II, ASCE, 1975, pp. 48-54.
22. Vesic, A. S. Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil Mass, Journal of Soil Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 98, No. 3, 1972, pp. 265-290.
23. Robertson, P. K., Sully, J. P., Woeller, D. J., Lunne, T., Powell, J. J. M., and Gillespie,
D. G. Estimating Coefficient of Consolidation from Piezocone Tests, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, 1992, pp. 539-550.
24. Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T., and Lancellotta, R. New Developments
in Field and Laboratory Testing of Soils, State-of-the-art Report, Proceedings of the
11
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San
Francisco, Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Vol. 1,1985, pp. 57-153.
25. Tumay, M. T., and Kurup, P. U., and Voyiadjis, G. Z. Profiling OCR and K
o
from
Piezocone Penetration Tests, International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing,
Sweden, 1995, pp. 337-342.

105
26. Skempton, A. W. The Pore-pressure Coefficients A and B, Geotechnique, No. 4, 1954,
pp. 143-147.
27. Andersen, A., Berre, T., Kleven, A., and Lunne, T. Procedures Used to Obtain Soil
Parameters for Foundation Engineering in North Sea, Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 3,
No. 3, 1979, pp. 201-66.
28. Mayne P. W., and Holts, R. D. Profiling Stress History form Piezocone Soundings,
Soils and Foundations, 28(1), 1988, pp. 16-28.
29. Powell, J. I., Quarterman, R. T., and Lunne, T. Interpretation and Use of the Piezocone
Test in UK Clays, Proceedings of the Geotechnology Conference on Penetration
Testing in UK, 1988, pp. 151-156.
30. Leroueil, S., Demers, D., LaRochelle, P., Martel G., and Virely, D. Practical use of the
Piezocone in Eastern Canada Clays, CPT95 International Symposium on Cone
Penetration Testing, Linkoping, Sweden, 1995, pp. 515-522.
31. Lutenegger, A. J., and Kabir, M. G. Interpretation of Piezocone Results in
Overconsolidated Clays, Proceedings of the Geotechnology Conference on Penetration
Testing in UK, 1988, pp. 147-150.
32. Sugawora, N. On the Possibility of estimating in situ OCR using Piezocone (CPTU),
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISPT-1, Orlando,
1988, pp. 985-991.
33. Demers, D. and Leroueil, S. Evaluation of Preconsolidation Pressure and the
Overconsolidation Ratio from Piezocone Tests of Clay Deposits in Quebec, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, No. 39, 2002, pp. 174-192.
34. Mayne, P. W., Kulhaway, F. H., and Kay, J. N. Observations on the Development of
Pore-water Stresses during Piezocone Penetration in Clays, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 27(4) 1990, pp. 418-428.
35. Larson R., and Mulabdic, M. Piezocone Tests in Clay. Swedish Geotechnical Institute
Report No. 42, Linkoping, Sweden, 1991, 240 pp.
36. Mayne, P. W., and Kulhaway F. H. First Order Estimate of Yield Stresses in Clays by
Cone and Piezocone, CPT95 International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing,
Linkoping, Sweden, 1995, pp. 515-522.
37. Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J. Use of Piezometer
Cone Data, Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference In Situ86: Use of In Situ
Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, 1986, pp. 1263-1280.
38. Wroth, C. P. The Interpretation of In-situ Soil Tests, Geotechnique, 1984, pp. 449-489.
106
39. Mayne, P. W. Determination of OCR in Clays by Piezocone Tests using Cavity
Expansion and Critical State Concept. Soils and Foundations, 1991, pp. 65-76.
40. Rad, N. S., and Lunne, T. Direct Correlation between Piezocone Test Results and
Undrained Shear Strength of Clay, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Balkema Pub, Rotterdam, Vol. 2, 1988, pp. 911-917.
41. Douglas, B. J., and Olsen, R. S. Soil Classification using Electric Cone Penetrometer.
Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, Proceedings of the ASCE National
Convention, St. Louis, 1981, pp. 209-227.
42. Robertson, P. K. Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 27(1), 1990, pp. 151-158.
43. Olsen, R. S., and Mitchell, J. K. CPT Stress Normalization and Prediction of Soil
Classification, CPT95 International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing,
Linkoping, Sweden, 1995, pp. 257-262.
44. Zhang, Z. and Tumay, M. T. Statistical to Fuzzy Approach Toward CPT Soil
Classification, Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
125, No. 3, 1999, pp. 179-186.
45. Tumay, M. T. Implementation of Louisiana Elecronic Cone Penetrometer System
(LECOPS) for Design of Transportation Facilities Executive Summary, Report No.
FHWA/LA-280-A, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. 1994.
46. Tumay, M. T., Kurup, P. U., and Boggess, R. L. A Continuous Intrusion Electronic
Miniature Cone Penetration Test System for Site Characterization, ISC98, Atlanta,
Robertson and Mayne (editors), Balkema, Vol. 2, 1998, pp. 1183-1188.
47. Sully, J. P., Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., and Woeller, D. J. et al. An Approach
to Evaluation of Field CPTU Dissipation Data in Overconsolidated Fine-grained Soils,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, No. 36, pp. 369-381 (1999).
48. Kabir, M. G., and Lutenegger, A. J. Discussion of: Preconsolidation Pressure from
Piezocone Tests in Marine Clays, Geotechnique, 1988, pp. 455-460.
49. Farrag, K., and Morvant, M. Construction and Performance Evaluation of the LTRC
Reinforced-soil Test Wall, Report No. 379, 2004, pp 136.
50. Das, B. B., Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Fifth Edition, Brooks/Cole
publisher, USA, 2002.

CV Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CV Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Project Review Committee

Anda mungkin juga menyukai